This is a silly and reductive lens that libertarians often apply. Look at the specific examples cited in the article: > the Arkansas Times [...] was asked

This is a silly and reductive lens that libertarians often apply. Look at the specific examples cited in the article: > the Arkansas Times [...] was asked to sign [a no-boycott certification] in order to renew its advertising contract with a state technical college. > A teacher in Kansas was told that she could not participate in the state’s teacher-training program because she refused to sign the anti-boycott form > A lawyer in Arizona was told that he could not be paid for his work on behalf of incarcerated people because he refused to sign the certification > a child speech pathologist in Texas lost her contract with a local school district because she refused to sign. > One town in Texas even briefly required victims of Hurricane Harvey to sign the anti-boycott certification as a condition of receiving disaster relief funds. It's a grotesque distortion to frame this case as involving the rights of citizens to contract with their state government and I'm certain you know it.