4 ms·
Here's the way it works, in practice. Legislators who propose and pass this legislation use it to demonstrate their support for Israel, or coal mining, or gun
by jawns 4y ago
Here's the way it works, in practice.
Legislators who propose and pass this legislation use it to demonstrate their support for Israel, or coal mining, or gun rights, or whatever anti-boycotting cause they're advancing. They are the primary beneficiaries here, because it helps them get donations and get re-elected.
Entities who are forced to sign these pledges generally put as much thought into it as you or I put into agreeing to a TOS with a binding arbitration agreement. In other words, not very much thought at all.
Because ... As you've pointed out, the government cannot, in practice, prove that those entities are actually boycotting unless the entities come right out and say it. So if the entities actually want to boycott Israel, they can continue to do so without announcing it. The law doesn't actually stop anyone from boycotting Israel; at best, it merely stops them from publicizing what they're doing.
The reason this doesn't get much push-back from most people who are forced to sign the pledge is because they weren't actually planning to boycott anyway. But there's a small number, such as the publisher who's at the heart of this case, who had no plans to boycott Israel, but who isn't going to let those legislators bully them.
- feet 4y agoSo it's only illegal if accompanied by speech, thereby making a specific speech illegal. Isn't that a first amendment violation?
- luckylion 4y agoIt's not illegal, you just wouldn't get government contracts, or be accepted as a government employee. Essentially, you can't say "don't buy from Jews" and be a teacher or sponsor KKK-marches and do landscaping for the local government. You can do both without doing business with the government though, so legality is not questioned.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y agoThat's not how the first amendment works, as it does put limitations on the kinds of speech that governments are allowed to favor (or disfavor). Just saying it only affects employment or contracts does not act like a "get out of jail free" card for governments. Of course, there is a ton of gray area here that the courts will have to rule on, but the whole point the ACLU is making is that they believe these anti-boycott laws are in violation of the first amendment.
- tb_technical 4y agoYou're right, it's not how the first amendment is supposed to work. But it's definitely how it currently works.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hyp0cr1tzz 4y ago"Free speech is just about government, private companies like Twitter can censor you" "Actually free speech means you can lose government contracts or you job as a government employee too" You know, at least I think China is a bit more honest about how they approach this question.
- luckylion 4y agoI'm not a fan of private companies or governments limiting speech, but there's a difference between the government saying "you're not allowed to say that" and the government saying "you're not allowed to say that if you want to be associated with the government". It could totally be a slippery slope towards the government amassing more power and then granting contracts only to those who parrot the party line, but I believe the solution to that is to reduce government size and power. And also, I don't find your position so controversial that you'd need a throwaway account.
- Stupulous 4y agoIt's only enforceable if accompanied by speech. If I commit a crime with no evidence, my confession is the only thing that can convict me. I don't think it would be fair to say I'd be forbidden from confessing. I think there's a stronger case that your purchase choice is covered as free expression or that the government can't compel you to do business with a private entity.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago> So if the entities actually want to boycott Israel, they can continue to do so without announcing it. The law doesn't actually stop anyone from boycotting Israel; at best, it merely stops them from publicizing what they're doing. But that is exactly what boycotts are all about. An effective boycott isn't just you deciding to stop buying something, but it's about convincing lots of other people and organizations to also stop buying something. And, perhaps most importantly, in any organization there is guaranteed to be a paper trail for any prohibitions against, say, purchasing from any companies in Israel. This kind of legislation absolutely would have a chilling effect on organizational purchases, which is where the vast amount of money sent to places likely to be boycotted comes from.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]