4 ms·
> 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 bo
by 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.
- wtallis 4y agoI think Article I section 8 may also apply, specifically the Commerce clause: > The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations A state prohibiting or requiring the purchase of goods from a particular foreign nation would seem to be encroaching on a Federal power. Especially if this bit gets interpreted as broadly as the next bit does (regulating commerce "among the several States").
- User23 4y agoTo steelman you need to show the same standard would be applied to formal allies besides Israel. I’m very curious to hear about any examples. I haven’t been able to find any. For example there doesn’t appear to be any action to restrict the Morocco boycott movement, despite their being the USA’s longest formal ally. Also, remember the risible anti-French boycotts during the Bush 2 administration because they weren’t enthusiastic about an obviously fake casus belli? France was and is an important formal ally of the USA and those boycotts would never be legislatively opposed.
- luckylion 4y agoAre there any formal allies that are primarily defined by ethnicity and are seeing boycotts against them (which often look very much like they're boycotting because of ethnicity, not political ideology, e.g. they wouldn't boycott others for doing the same)?
- sbaiddn 4y agoItaly, Japan, etc define their nationality through ethnicity (ius sangui). Greece defines nationality in a very convoluted way, but its basically trying to find ethnic Greeks. In fact nationality through ethnicity is the norm. What isn't common is that every country but Israel is being pressured to change their nationality laws.
- luckylion 4y agoI haven't seen calls for boycott against Italy, Japan or Greece, especially not because of the ethnicity of the inhabitants. I wonder if we'd see it if there was a sizable Anti-Italian movement in the US.
- sbaiddn 4y agoYou asked if other countries have ethnic nationality, and I pointed out that most do. I added that, while I read The Economist and other "thought leader" rags call for a liberation of Japan, Italy, etc nationality law, I have never read any respectable editorial arguing the same for Israel. I did not mention anything about boycotts. but, since you asked, Japan and Italy were both boycotted (blockaded, actually) in the 30s for occupying territories and putting settlers there.
- mkoubaa 4y agoActually this is a constitutional right
- UncleOxidant 4y agoSo a Republican legislature could pass a law in a state saying that you can't contribute money to a Democratic candidate if you want to work for the state as a contractor or employee - that seems pretty close to what they've done here, it's just the opposite of a boycott (giving money instead of withholding it)