3 ms·

The original American colonists boycotted the tea from England. Under the appeals court ruling, things like boycotting twitter could be made illegal.

• Waterluvian 4y ago
  Admittedly I don’t know American history well. Are you referring to the Boston tea party or was there a much longer running boycott? I ask because my weak understanding is that colonists waylaid ships in port and actively destroyed the cargo. That’s more than a boycott, I think?
  • char_star_star 4y ago
    Non-consumption and non-importation movements in response to taxes levied on various goods imported from England. Precursors to the future direct action taken at the Boston Tea Party. https://www.masshist.org/revolution/non_importation.php https://www.masshist.org/revolution/non_importation.php
    • Waterluvian 4y ago
      Thanks for the link and lesson! And I’m guessing that when the ACLU mentions the Boston Tea Party at the beginning of the article, they mean the bigger series of events and not as much the destruction of property in the harbour. I imagine they’re not advocating for the constitutional right to illegally destroy property as a form of boycott. (Fully appreciating that context was very different in 1773, I’m not suggesting the Boston Tea Party was “wrong”.)
      • hedora 4y ago
        It was less about the taxes, and more about the fact that Britain banned the import of tea by any other country. These days, we have plenty of monopolies that probably deserve similar treatment (or anti trust actions), so the schools don't teach that part of the story.
        • yamtaddle 4y ago
          There was a stronger anti-tax argument for other things (stamp act, especially) but the tea issue was mostly a bunch of smugglers and smuggler-connected folks who were pissed off that the British had not just made any gray-area work they were doing explicitly illegal, but were also undercutting them such that they couldn't compete on price, even by breaking the law. For ordinary tea drinkers the whole tea thing actually made tea cheaper. It's one of the weirder things to get attention as a reason-for-revolt, really. I suppose the "tea party" protest is just odd and interesting enough that we can't resist lumping that in with far more legitimate grievances.
• rayiner 4y ago
  The American colonists weren’t trying to boycott English tea while still trying to get government contracts from England. The question is not whether the government can ban a boycott (obviously not) but whether it can use its position as a major buyer to influence such boycotts.
  • hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    People boycotting Israel aren't trying to get government contracts with Israel either. There is obviously gray area here, but I think it's extremely unlikely the courts will rule that these anti-boycott laws are OK because it only affects employment or contracts. More than likely, courts will see it as a free speech restriction, but will apply the strict scrutiny test to determine if these are an allowed compelling government interest. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest
  • bb88 4y ago
    So? Those US companies aren't getting government contracts from Israel.