4 ms·

So it's only illegal if accompanied by speech, thereby making a specific speech illegal. Isn't that a first amendment violation?

by feet 4y ago

luckylion 4y ago
It'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 ago
  That'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 ago
    You'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 ago
    I'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 ago
It'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.

So it's only illegal if accompanied by speech, thereby making a specific speech illegal. Isn't that a first amendment violation?

by feet 4y ago

So it's only illegal if accompanied by speech, thereby making a specific speech illegal. Isn't that a first amendment violation?

luckylion 4y ago

It'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 ago
That'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 ago
  You'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 ago
  I'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 ago

It'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.