4 ms·
> you can't deny the fact that they are a strategically valuable geopolitical ally. So ergo, we must destroy the first amendment to shield other countries from
by bb88 4y ago
> you can't deny the fact that they are a strategically valuable geopolitical ally.
So ergo, we must destroy the first amendment to shield other countries from valid criticisms? I'd think we'd want our allies to respect our right to free speech above all else.
Edited to add: I even think we would want to respect our right to free speech over the beliefs of our allies.
- Manuel_D 4y agoWhat first amendment right is being destroyed? You have the right to boycott. The federal government also has the right to boycott you for choosing particular targets of your boycott.
- bb88 4y agoThe principle in question is favoritism based upon political speech. If, say, you boycott the democratic party (e.g.), then the Biden government would have every right to cancel any contracts because of your political speech. The only way to prove that you're not actually boycotting would be to donate to the democratic party.
- hedora 4y agoSimilarly, by the logic of the current anti-boycott laws, they could make you promise not to support those anti-Democrat nutjobs in the GOP.
- crazygringo 4y agoNo. The federal government does not have that right, that's the entire point of this lawsuit. And the entire point of the first amendment. In a democracy, a government does not have the right to selectively boycott its citizens for their political views. Otherwise, what's next -- the party in power refusing to award contracts to businesses that support the opposition party? You can see how democracy would collapse pretty quickly.
- connicpu 4y agoActually the government very specifically does not have the right to retaliate against you based upon protected speech you make, the entire point of the first amendment.
- Manuel_D 4y agoIs it speech or is it inefficient sourcing practices? The fed doesn't want to buy from a company engaging in boycotts because it's paying a premium to exclude a certain segment of the market. If the cheapest manufacturer of a part is a boycotted country then a more expensive one must be sourced. If a country really should be excluded from trade pass a sanction.
- connicpu 4y agoThat's the point of the bidding process for government contracts. If your boycott makes your services more expensive, then you're less likely to receive the contract, but it would still be your choice. And it doesn't apply at all to e.g. Teachers who are being forced to sign waivers like this
- Manuel_D 4y ago> If your boycott makes your services more expensive, then you're less likely to receive the contract, but it would still be your choice. The cheapest bid might be even cheaper absent the boycott. I, and plenty of other people, don't want to pay this premium because of a company's political agenda. Fulfill the contract with the most efficient supplies on the market, or don't both bidding at all.
- rnk 4y agoOf course protecting our ally Israel in special ways is exactly what these laws are intended to do. People get all bent out of shape when someone criticizes the US, and the same happens with regards to Israel. Countries make mistakes, it's a good idea to have open discussion of those problems. Saying your can't criticize the us because it's unamerican or helps our enemies or some such is just nonsense, and it also applies to other countries in the world.
- bb88 4y agoThis was one of the problems of the George W. Bush on the run up to the Iraq war. If you criticized the president, you were accused of giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy --- which of course was nonsense.