4 ms·

>lawmakers urge Shouldn't lawmakers, um, make laws? Instead of asking nicely?

bushbaba 3y ago
Because this is a minority opinion speaking.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
Yes, but I wouldn't be surprised if signing a meaningless letter an aide wrote gives better PR than pushing for a failed bill. And it's hard to imagine a pro-Palestine bill actually passing.
mikece 3y ago
They don't have a majority sufficient to make such a law (or a super-majority to override a veto).
- q1w2 3y ago
  Correct - the letter was signed by 11 out of 535 members of congress. ...and it was the very vocal anti-Israeli ones, such as Rashida Tlaib
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
flagrant_taco 3y ago
What would that law look like exactly? It couldn't single or PayPal and likely shouldn't single or Palestine to be sorry all the time and effort to get it passed.
- fsflover 3y ago
  "A company with <revenue/number of users/...> larger than <number> may not freeze your account without giving any reason and without any recourse.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    That's a pretty serious step with the federal government directly limiting what every business can do. I'm not actually sure if that would even be constitutional given that it severely limits how potentially privately owned businesses set their own terms of use. Defining what those limits are is entirely arbitrary, how do we pick a number that makes sense universally? Is that number adjusted for inflation, population size, business market share, etc? Does this only apply to financial service businesses, regulated financial institutions, or any business? What's the legal definition here for freezing an account? Writing clear laws isn't an easy or fast process, especially when you're talking about a government regulation 300M+ citizens spread across 50 different states with their own laws.
    - polski-g 3y ago
      > That's a pretty serious step with the federal government directly limiting what every business can do. I'm not actually sure if that would even be constitutional given that it severely limits how potentially privately owned businesses set their own terms of use. See: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-ac...
      - flagrant_taco 3y ago
        I never said there isn't precedent for the government seeing some limits on what companies can do. It's important to note, though, that this is a constitutional amendment rather than a law and had a much higher requirement to pass. This precedent would also be equating the civil rights protections within American borders with the rights of non-US citizens to use a company's payment service in a foreign territory. Not sure that is be comfortable comparing those two issues.
somebody78978 3y ago
I don't think the U.S. government has the right to force a company to operate in another country.
- KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
  However they do have the power to end a boycott, either directly or indirectly (see the laws passed by various states regarding refusing to do business with Israel).
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    The ones that criminalize participating in a boycott? A fourth grader can identity those as flatly unconstitutional.
    - user982 3y ago
      And yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in...
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - giraffe_lady 3y ago
        Yeah the immediately following "public opinion" section is particularly interesting. really makes u think.
        user982 3y ago
        I do wonder how Pew got such drastically different results from every other poll.
        giraffe_lady 3y ago

Because this is a minority opinion speaking.

Yes, but I wouldn't be surprised if signing a meaningless letter an aide wrote gives better PR than pushing for a failed bill. And it's hard to imagine a pro-Palestine bill actually passing.

mikece 3y ago

They don't have a majority sufficient to make such a law (or a super-majority to override a veto).

q1w2 3y ago
Correct - the letter was signed by 11 out of 535 members of congress. ...and it was the very vocal anti-Israeli ones, such as Rashida Tlaib

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

flagrant_taco 3y ago

What would that law look like exactly? It couldn't single or PayPal and likely shouldn't single or Palestine to be sorry all the time and effort to get it passed.

fsflover 3y ago
"A company with <revenue/number of users/...> larger than <number> may not freeze your account without giving any reason and without any recourse.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  That's a pretty serious step with the federal government directly limiting what every business can do. I'm not actually sure if that would even be constitutional given that it severely limits how potentially privately owned businesses set their own terms of use. Defining what those limits are is entirely arbitrary, how do we pick a number that makes sense universally? Is that number adjusted for inflation, population size, business market share, etc? Does this only apply to financial service businesses, regulated financial institutions, or any business? What's the legal definition here for freezing an account? Writing clear laws isn't an easy or fast process, especially when you're talking about a government regulation 300M+ citizens spread across 50 different states with their own laws.
  - polski-g 3y ago
    > That's a pretty serious step with the federal government directly limiting what every business can do. I'm not actually sure if that would even be constitutional given that it severely limits how potentially privately owned businesses set their own terms of use. See: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-ac...
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      I never said there isn't precedent for the government seeing some limits on what companies can do. It's important to note, though, that this is a constitutional amendment rather than a law and had a much higher requirement to pass. This precedent would also be equating the civil rights protections within American borders with the rights of non-US citizens to use a company's payment service in a foreign territory. Not sure that is be comfortable comparing those two issues.

somebody78978 3y ago

I don't think the U.S. government has the right to force a company to operate in another country.

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
However they do have the power to end a boycott, either directly or indirectly (see the laws passed by various states regarding refusing to do business with Israel).
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  The ones that criminalize participating in a boycott? A fourth grader can identity those as flatly unconstitutional.
  - user982 3y ago
    And yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      Yeah the immediately following "public opinion" section is particularly interesting. really makes u think.
      - user982 3y ago
        I do wonder how Pew got such drastically different results from every other poll.
        giraffe_lady 3y ago