4 ms·

It is genuinely offensive to hear them comparing the Alabama bus boycotts to companies receiving government contracts. They know perfectly well that an individu

It 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 ago
No 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 ago
this 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 ago
  OP seems very incensed even before reading the article.
- pie_flavor 4y ago
  You appear to be misunderstanding 'individual right'. You have a right to boycott Israel in all of those states. The government just won't award you any contracts. You do not have a right to government contracts. This is very different from the government directly banning you from doing something. They then go on to imply the opposite, that this decision would have allowed banning the Alabama bus boycotts, which is flatly false. The example they gave of an individual was indeed an example of a law beyond the awarding government contracts - which was shrunk down in response to avoid the inevitable judgment of unconstitutionality. There was never any chance that the individual right was at risk.
  - wtallis 4y ago
    The ACLU cited multiple examples, from more than one state, of individuals being coerced to sign anti-boycott pledges. Unless you are willing to actually refute those examples (plural!) as untrue, it is absurd for you to claim that there's no threat to the individual right to boycott. Simply asserting that all such overreaches will eventually and inevitably be corrected by the courts does not mean the rights are not at risk, and being infringed in the meantime, by multiple laws in multiple states.
paulgb 4y ago
> They know perfectly well that an individual right to boycott has never been in danger; they're just rattling the collection plate. It seems it was in this case, but for their intervention. https://eu.cjonline.com/story/news/politics/state/2018/06/29/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-over-israel-boycott-ban-orders-state-of-kansas-to-pay-legal-fees/11627893007/ https://eu.cjonline.com/story/news/politics/state/2018/06/29...
- pie_flavor 4y ago
  More accurately, but for the judge's judgment. Unconstitutional laws get passed every day; something has only gone wrong if they are upheld.

Spivak 4y ago

No 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 ago

this 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 ago
OP seems very incensed even before reading the article.
pie_flavor 4y ago
You appear to be misunderstanding 'individual right'. You have a right to boycott Israel in all of those states. The government just won't award you any contracts. You do not have a right to government contracts. This is very different from the government directly banning you from doing something. They then go on to imply the opposite, that this decision would have allowed banning the Alabama bus boycotts, which is flatly false. The example they gave of an individual was indeed an example of a law beyond the awarding government contracts - which was shrunk down in response to avoid the inevitable judgment of unconstitutionality. There was never any chance that the individual right was at risk.
- wtallis 4y ago
  The ACLU cited multiple examples, from more than one state, of individuals being coerced to sign anti-boycott pledges. Unless you are willing to actually refute those examples (plural!) as untrue, it is absurd for you to claim that there's no threat to the individual right to boycott. Simply asserting that all such overreaches will eventually and inevitably be corrected by the courts does not mean the rights are not at risk, and being infringed in the meantime, by multiple laws in multiple states.

paulgb 4y ago

> They know perfectly well that an individual right to boycott has never been in danger; they're just rattling the collection plate. It seems it was in this case, but for their intervention. https://eu.cjonline.com/story/news/politics/state/2018/06/29/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-over-israel-boycott-ban-orders-state-of-kansas-to-pay-legal-fees/11627893007/ https://eu.cjonline.com/story/news/politics/state/2018/06/29...

pie_flavor 4y ago
More accurately, but for the judge's judgment. Unconstitutional laws get passed every day; something has only gone wrong if they are upheld.