13 ms·
It’s Time to Reaffirm Our First Amendment Right to Boycott
- rootusrootus 4y agoInteresting, I had no idea that this was a thing. I think it is perfectly sensible to prohibit employees from using their personal conscience to boycott with company (or government) funds, as it isn't their own money. But prohibiting them personally? That should be protected absolutely. And companies should be permitted to boycott as well, when the decision is actually a company decision and not just a rando employee.
- enkid 4y agoI could understand the US government not allowing certain companies to boycott foreign governments, as you start getting companies affecting foreign policy, which isn't a great position to be in. To me, this should be limited to limits the federal government can place on business conducted specifically for the federal government, and shouldn't extend to individuals working for that company. For example, they should be able to specify that a national security company has to be willing to purchase parts from a specific foreign country for the business it does with the federal government. I feel like anything other than that should be protected speech.
- mkoubaa 4y agoI bring this particular issue up anytime I hear that cancel culture was a contribution of the political left.
- rootusrootus 4y agoBoycotting is not cancel culture, IMO. It's one thing to vote with your wallet, or vocally protest against a company. It's another thing entirely to go after someone personally and attempt to ruin their life for something they've done to offend you. I suspect that's the problem most people are thinking of when they use the term 'cancel culture.' Like Justine Sacco. Totally horrid leveraging of the power of the Internet to destroy an individual.
- upbeat_general 4y agoI’ve very often heard cancel culture used to refer to “cancelling” of companies so I’m not sure I agree with that statement. Also the line can be blurry with celebrities since they will engage in business deals.
- rootusrootus 4y agoI think there is a scale. I think it's unacceptable to send the mob after an individual to destroy their life. I think there is more wiggle room when the target is a celebrity who signed up to be a public figure. Same with politicians. Not that it should completely unlimited, mind you, but if someone chooses to be a public figure then they are accepting that some people will be critical of them. With companies, I don't know if there should be much, if any limit to what gets said. Companies are not people, Mitt Romney's opinion notwithstanding. To me it becomes a moral wrong when there is a human target.
- mkoubaa 4y agoState governments can and have fired people for their political speech under these laws.
- MarkPNeyer 4y ago
- tetrep 4y ago> The court of appeals reasoned that because one can’t know the meaning of a decision not to purchase from a business unless it is accompanied by speech, the boycott itself is not protected, and the state is free to single out and penalize the boycotts it disfavors. Wow. Using the same logic as that ruling, donating to politicians is not protected by the 1st Amendment unless you also include a memo making clear your intent... This feels like more "I'll know it when I see it" but with intent instead of porn.
- User23 4y agoThe logic is very simple. You just can’t boycott Israel. Edit: And you can’t post about how you can’t boycott Israel either.
- erik_seaberg 4y agoTo steelman the other side, you can’t work for the US government while antagonizing a formal ally of the US government.
- mattficke 4y agoThese are all state laws, not federal.
- erik_seaberg 4y agoThanks, that is kind of weird. US states aren’t supposed to engage in foreign policy.
- User23 4y agoArticle I section 10 of the US constitution specifically enumerates what states aren’t permitted to do. It’s not a blanket prohibition on engaging in foreign policy. And that’s not even bringing in the 9th and 10th amendments. Section 10 itself enumerates a circumstance under which a State may wage war for example. Indeed, as anyone who has driven into California from Oregon knows, the states are even able to execute foreign policy against other states. Specifically for agricultural inspections in that case.
- version_five 4y agoThis is much more subtle than the article makes it out to be. I don't think I understand it well enough to have a clear position, but here is what comes to mind: They are asking that companies affirm they won't boycott Isreal (this is almost certainly why the ACLU cares, but anyway) in exchange for government contracts. Does anybody know how the constitution applies in such situations? What comes to mind is the drug testing requirement for federal contracts. Police can't just come up and randomly drug test you, but you can agree to it in exchange for money. Why is this different? It feels like there are lots of business situations where you essentially give up a right as part of a contract. I understand why the newspaper doesn't sign, I probably wouldn't either. But then I wouldn't expect to get the money.
- oytis 4y agoIf it was a requirement from a private contractor that would probably be fine (and could be an exercise of the First Amendment by itself). But with government contracts it looks like the amendment should be applied here.
- chadash 4y agoSay that a company is called The White Power Group and is known to spew what most would consider hate speech. They bid to provide government offices with toilet paper. Should the government be allowed to turn them down?
- bb88 4y agoYes, because at a basic level, government officials don't want money from contracts to go fund things that undermine the government itself, or the safety of its citizens. In this case white supremacists have a long history of using violence.
- rootusrootus 4y agoThen we go down the path of deciding what hate speech legally is, what the line is before the gov't will refuse to do business with someone, etc. Not to mention the policy shifting every time POTUS switches party. What a mess. What about Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby? Hate speech? Depends on who you ask.
- connicpu 4y agoI still cannot wrap my head around the idea of making a boycott illegal. If it's not accompanied by speech, what is the difference between someone who actively avoids a product or one who simply would not have purchased it in the first place? How can that possibly be enforced? If I sign that form and then happen to not buy any of the products I'm not supposed to boycott, have I violated the contract?
- nerdponx 4y agoIt's not illegal, but it does disqualify you from getting a federal government business contract. I think this is more of a gray area than advocates would like to make you believe. Whatever you might feel about Israel, you can't deny the fact that they are a strategically valuable geopolitical ally, and it's not unreasonable for the federal government to avoid doing businesses with companies that are actively and publicly boycotting a strategic ally. What if it was Taiwan instead?
- Animatronio 4y agoWhat if it was Qatar instead, or Saudi Arabia? Are they not allies? Are ppl allowed to express dissatisfaction with their behaviour?
- nerdponx 4y agoOf course, but the government is also allowed to decide not to do business with those people. This case is more analogous to the case of the cake shop who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple. It's less about free speech in general and more about discrimination in doing business.
- Animatronio 4y agoYou mean this one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/24/bakersfield-california-bakery-same-sex-wedding-cake https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/24/bakersfield-ca...
- 4y ago
- CoastalCoder 4y agoI wasn't aware of this issue, and as framed by the ACLU it's pretty alarming. That said, experience tells me to always get both sides of a story. Can anyone suggest a good representation of the other sides' position?
- mattficke 4y agoThe (unconvincing) argument is that boycotting Israel is discriminating on the basis of religion and ethnicity, and is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment (for the same reason laws banning racial discrimination don’t violate the 1st amendment.) It’s not a very good argument imo.
- HKH2 4y agoYeah it makes no sense. You can't boycott Israel, but the government can sanction Iran etc.
- mkoubaa 4y agoThese laws are passed in states who are politically dominated by apocalyptic evangelical christians who believe that the state of Israel is the only thing holding back literal Armageddon
- faxywaxy 4y agoI'm not super well versed in evangelical christianity but I think they want Israel to start Armageddon, their goal is bring it about, not to avoid it: https://www.businessinsider.com/battle-armageddon-israel-evangelical-christians-2013-1?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/battle-armageddon-israel-eva...
- ars 4y agoIt's not really that complicated, people pretend they are boycotting Israel because of issues with Israel, while in reality it's just antisemitism. The proof comes when you ask them who else are they boycotting, and it's no one. You get even more proof when you start asking them detailed questions about what's going on in Israel and they have no clue. Or they say things that aren't actually true. The 1% who are intellectually honest about it are easily dwarfed by the 99% who are doing it out of hate.
- gladiatr72 4y ago
- xwowsersx 4y agoI don't think the language of "parasites" is appropriate on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- gladiatr72 4y agoYou made a new HN ID just for me? Shucks... (though I think there's also something about not doing that, too, but w/e)
- xwowsersx 4y ago> Created: June 6, 2012 What are you on about?
- batch12 4y agoIt's 2022 not 2012?
- SpectralTheory 4y agoThat account has a lot of karma for someone new...
- nxm 4y agoI’ve lost all respect for ACLU. In 2014 they were warning against forced vaccinations, and then during Covid they changed their mind and were all for firing public and private employees if they refused the jab. They’re just an extension of the left’s ideology at this point.
- version_five 4y agoFor those unaware, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has to some extent taken up the mantle for causes that the ACLU abandoned after being ideologically compromised. https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/
- greenyoda 4y agoFIRE seems to agree with the ACLU on this issue: https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-asks-supreme-court-uphold-first-amendment-right-boycott https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-asks-supreme-court-uphold-... > Despite the clear precedent holding a boycott constitutes protected expression, the Eighth Circuit ruled against the Times. ... Today, FIRE and the Forum for Constitutional Rights filed an amicus curiae — “friend of the court” — brief in support of the Arkansas Times’ request for the Supreme Court to hear its case.
- Spivak 4y agoYou’re ignoring the part where in 2014 they specifically said that if an individual not being vaccinated causes harm to others then mandating they be vaccinated is sometimes necessary and likely constitutional. It’s the same as other diseases, the government normally can’t jail you without trial but if you have smallpox you bet you’ll be quarantined against your will. Fast forward to 2021 and that’s the reasoning they use. I don’t really care if you disagree with how they view the situation — that’s fine. But the ACLU is logically consistent on this issue.
- elefanten 4y agoThey’ve also literally promoted banning books. The ACLU made its name defending the free speech rights of despicable parties on principle. Because, among other reasons, allowing exceptions to the protection of civil liberties terminally all-but-guarantees that such exceptions will be abused in unjust ways. But there is no longer any principle they stand on. Politically compromised and merely self-perpetuating for the cynical insiders willing to bend the machinery to their selfish ends. Entropy has taken the ACLU, and it’s just a cancer on the body politic now.
- jl6 4y agoIs it normal for a government contract to mandate that the contractor does or does not profess a specific political opinion? This feels very not normal.
- smegsicle 4y agoanti-bds legislation is relatively common https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-bds-legislation https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-bds-legislation > To date, 35 states have adopted laws, executive orders, or resolutions designed to discourage boycotts against Israel. Separately, the U.S. Congress is also considering anti-boycott legislation > Tennessee [...] state contracts must include “a written certification that the company is not currently engaged in, and will not for the duration of the contract engage in a boycott of Israel.” > South Carolina’s state legislature passed legislation banning the state from entering into contracts with companies that participate in certain boycotts. > Illinois’ state pension announced in December 2021 that it will divest from Unilever, the parent company of Ben and Jerry’s, over the ice cream company’s decision to stop selling ice cream in the West Bank.
- pessimizer 4y agoIt's not normal. It's only for Israel.
- pie_flavor 4y agoIt is genuinely offensive to hear them comparing the Alabama bus boycotts to companies receiving government contracts. They know perfectly well that an individual right to boycott has never been in danger; they're just rattling the collection plate.
- Spivak 4y agoNo this is about the government end running around the first amendment by making companies violate people’s rights instead. If boycotts are protected speech then the government should not be allowed to put up money on the condition that the people who take it and their employees give up this right.
- Barrin92 4y agothis seems equally important. A company should not be disadvantaged when competing for government contracts because of an unrelated stance. This extends directly to individuals. What if an employee at the company is an outspoken critic on one of the topics that can get you thrown out of a contract competition? It's an attempt to silence organizations by disadvantaging them economically. And we all know that if it wasn't Israel related it'd never fly. Imagine for even one second a company was excluded from a contract because of its stance on gun rights, abortion or gay rights. You'd have either half of the country on your mattress within five seconds.
- wtallis 4y ago> They know perfectly well that an individual right to boycott has never been in danger; They claim exactly the opposite: > Since 2016, 28 states have passed laws requiring individuals and businesses that receive government contracts – from substitute teachers to construction workers — to certify that they will not participate in boycotts of Israel or Israeli settlements in the West Bank. And they go on to provide examples of individuals being coerced to sign an anti-boycott pledge, not just corporations. Are you saying the ACLU is making all of that up?
- Animatronio 4y agoOP seems very incensed even before reading the article.
- lazzlazzlazz 4y agoThe ACLU has no credibility and no consistency any longer — something they rightly could take great credit for. No point in following them.
- chadash 4y agoI think that this cuts both ways to some extent. The references case is about not awarding government contracts based on a company’s not agreeing to not boycott Israel. To be clear, no one is arguing that companies can’t boycott Israel. They are simply saying that doing so would invalidate your ability to get government contracts in the given state. The problem is that it cuts both ways. If you say that this is an infringement of first amendment rights, then the logical extension of that is that the government can never refuse a contract based on a company’s free speech. So for example, say Acme Co openly proclaims their support for the Ku Klux Klan… should the state of Michigan be allowed to say that they won’t purchase toilet paper from them?
- aidenn0 4y ago> So for example, say Acme Co openly proclaims their support for the Ku Klux Klan… should the state of Michigan be allowed to say that they won’t purchase toilet paper from them? Absolutely not. There should be no political tests, no matter how odious the politics for government contracts.
- thebradbain 4y agoThe issue there is that… if you’re invalidated on that basis alone, then that seems to go against the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” since, in this example, it’s quite clear the _only_ thing that would disqualify you is your speech (specifically, your expression of intent to boycott) At its most extreme, then there’s no reason a GOP-run government could say “any company that has ever donated to, or has an employee who has donated to, a Democrat is ineligible for state contracts” in a bid to freeze donations to the opposition party. The only thing that’s been replaced in that sentence from current laws is “The BDS Movement” with “Democrat”. Obviously that would be an infringement of political speech. Adding in the KKK or other hate groups into the mix doesn’t really muddy the waters— if a company is (reasonably suspected of) not adhering to other laws, like the Civil Rights Act (and any other equivalent state laws about protected classes), then the state would likely be prohibited anyways from continuing with such a contract, so it’s not the same.
- skorpeon87 4y ago
- UncleOxidant 4y ago28 states have passed laws requiring individuals and businesses that receive government contracts – from substitute teachers to construction workers — to certify that they will not participate in boycotts of Israel or Israeli settlements in the West Bank What the hell? How can that be enforceable? Ok, so you sign it just so you can get the job, but then don't buy stuff from Israel (or whatever the cause/country/company is you want to boycott) - how could they force you to buy the products? This is just stupidity on the part of these states. If the right to boycott is to be preserved, the Supreme Court must step in. Yet somehow I suspect this supreme court will find a way to mess this up.
- tpmoney 4y agoWe've consistently tied federal funding to a whole host of restrictions on activities. Receiving federal funding prohibits you from a number of "discrimination / free association" practices that purely private interests are allowed to engage in. States are required to implement a number of policies (most famously the 21 drinking age) as a condition of getting federal money. This seems like another in a long line of constitutional violations.
- rnk 4y agoThe courts have decided that the federal govt can put restrictions on money they give the states. It's also not the same thing as states passing laws saying you as an individual or business are disallowed from making your own choices about who you might wish to boycott.
- tuyguntn 4y ago> How can that be enforceable? Participate in protests boycotting Israel or try to protest any Israel government policy, you will be blamed for boycotting and your company needs to terminate you if they want to continue doing their business, otherwise government will impose a sanction to your employer, then everyone will try to avoid your employer.
- Animatronio 4y agoAt the root of this issue is Israel's treatment of Palestine. Solve that, and boycotts will cease. Everything else, including any anti-bds law, is ultimately just a smoke screen.
- svggrfgovgf 4y agoHmm. I can see there may be first amendment issue here and I realize the issue is state governments limiting who can receive state funds. However, the US federal government used withholding funds to force state governments to pass/amend certain laws. For example, congress would withhold highway funds from any state that did not raise the drinking age to at least 21 [0]. Obviously, this isn't exactly the same thing, but it is an example of a US government using the withholding of funding to achieve a policy goal. [0] https://www.quora.com/Can-the-federal-government-withhold-federal-funds-from-a-state-that-opts-out-of-a-federal-program-established-by-the-law?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Can-the-federal-government-withhold-fe...
- rayiner 4y agoIt’s sadly unsurprising that the ACLU has taken the opposite position on use of government contracting to achieve that the state cannot do directly when the liberty at issue is religious rather than speech: https://www.aclupa.org/en/news/what-fulton-v-city-philadelphia-means-lgbqt-families-and-individuals https://www.aclupa.org/en/news/what-fulton-v-city-philadelph...
- Finnucane 4y agoThat case is about letting people use religion as an excuse to discriminate against people they don’t like.
- rayiner 4y agoSpecifically, that case is about governments forcing adoption services to work with gay couples if they want government contracts. Similarly, this case is about governments forcing private businesses to do business with Israelis if they want to get government contracts.
- Finnucane 4y agoThe government can enforce rules against discrimination and religion doesn’t mean you get a free pass from laws you don’t like.
- rayiner 4y agoThere is no anti-discrimination law with respect to adoption services, and it's doubtful such a law would be constitutional. The 14th amendment applies to governments, not individuals. To regulate private conduct, the government needs some other hook. Usually, this is the commerce power, which is the basis of non-discrimination laws in public accommodations or housing. That's why things like private clubs and rentals in owner-occupied buildings are exempt from those laws. In other cases, such as non-discrimination in education, the hook is acceptance of federal funding. The question in both the adoption case and the anti-BDS case is the extent to which the government can use its position as a purchaser to control otherwise legal private conduct.
- _8j50 4y agoMy question is, does the first amendment apply to government employees and contractors in their capacity of doing work for the state as opposed to as individuals? These people can and do get fired for saying the wrong thing on social media or getting recorded acting like a jerk in public for example, so the first amendment does not apply to them. I agree that the government cannot prevent citizens from boycotting but they can prevent themselves from boycotting, what I mean is employees and contractors are part of the state, agents if you will. The 1st and I believe other amendments use the term abridging: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Termination of employment or contract is not abridging those people's freedoms, they can still boycott. The ACLU's argument boils down to whether or not termination of a contract by the state equals a punishment or if the threat of termination equals a punishment that prevents a person from excercising their freedom. If it is a punishment or a restriction, then effectively, state employees and contractors can do anything protected by the constitution and keep their jobs. For an extreme example, can a contracor for the state police associate with white nationalists and say things in public like how the police will be on their side in their typical "race war" propaganda, and state will have to maintain their contract? Or can a teacher at an elementary school post online how he likes young girls and not lose his job because that was freedom of speech? The latter one is not political but the former example of a white nationalist arguably is political because one can argue (not that I do) that boycotting israel and desiring war against the jews (white nationalist propaganda) are both free expressions of the person's sentiment even though boycotting is an expression of disagreement and my example is one of anti-semetism. I think federal employment law should protect these people so they can protest and boycott but I cannot agree that the constitution protects employees and other agents of the state.
- joemazerino 4y agoBoycotting Israel, huh? Big fight you got there ACLU.