> Anti-BDS laws have existed in many states for quite some time, under many different courts, and not been overturned. So until a SC decision finally finds such

> Anti-BDS laws have existed in many states for quite some time, under many different courts, and not been overturned. So until a SC decision finally finds such laws unconstitutional, I will continue to accept that they are, even though I am strongly against them. That's fine, but they still don't do what you claimed. Your said the laws prevent me from choosing but to do business with Israel. That's not true. That law has the government put a particular line in it's contracts. The government, when acting more or less as a private actor, can do what it wants with it's contracts, even things that would be unconstitutional if passed as a blanket law. > As you said, Twitter can still claim "a legitimate non-protected class reason" (like, the account is a bot) for terminating accounts, but can't "discriminate" against political views. It already does: threats of violence are like the primary reason accounts are removed. Being republican isn't carte blanche to threaten or harass people, and neither is being a tankie, and that's why Twitter removed accounts from all sides of the political spectrum without discrimination! > In Texas, because of this law, political belief is now effectively a protected class, at least w.r.t social media. No, that's not at all what that means. For one just no. But second, this law goes beyond that and bans speaker neutral, content based policies that aren't indented to discriminate, like for example saying "you're not allowed to threaten to kill people on our platform".