4 ms·

Probably not going to find this one encouraging: > A Columbia genocide scholar says she may leave over university’s new definition of antisemitism > ... Hirsc

Probably not going to find this one encouraging: > A Columbia genocide scholar says she may leave over university’s new definition of antisemitism > ... Hirsch, the daughter of two Holocaust survivors, is now thinking of leaving the classroom altogether. https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-antisemitism-definition-68d44684f376b12162a28b88104e5d24 https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-antisemitism-... -- Tangentially related, I never understood how the anti-BDS laws square with the first amendment (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...)

zahlman 1y ago
> Tangentially related, I never understood how the anti-BDS laws square with the first amendment At my university, a portion of my dues went to funding BDS efforts (what expenses do they even have?) and I had no clear means to object to this. This was in Canada, but it seems to me perfectly fair to oppose that. That said: > Most anti-BDS laws have taken one of two forms: contract-focused laws requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel; and investment-focused laws, mandating public investment funds to avoid entities boycotting Israel. Substitute, for example, any domestic racial minority for "Israel"; does your opinion change?
- anonymars 1y ago
  > At my university, a portion of my dues went to funding BDS efforts Surely you can protest that at the university and it is not a government-enforced policy? > Substitute, for example, any domestic racial minority for "Israel" Is "Israel" a race or a country? Should a Canadian not be allowed to boycott the US?
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > Is "Israel" a race or a country? Should a Canadian not be allowed to boycott the US? The legislation described does not prevent boycotts, except by government contractors who have a duty to government policy and thus do not necessarily enjoy those protections (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47986 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47986): > Speech restrictions imposed by private entities, and government limits on its own speech, usually do not implicate the First Amendment. As for public investment funds: you'll need to explain to me how saying that X may not invest in Y because Y is refusing to buy things from Z, causes Y to stop being able to refuse to buy things from Z (i.e., compels Y to buy things from Z). If you want to not buy things from Israel, then... just don't. You don't need my money, or a private investment firm's, in order to achieve that.
    - anonymars 1y ago
      > Speech restrictions imposed by private entities, and government limits on its own speech, usually do not implicate the First Amendment How does this apply to the matter at hand? The restrictions on doing business are being imposed on (not by) a private entity, by (not on) the government. The government is free to do business with Israel if it so chooses As a private entity doing business with the government, why is it permissible to boycott other countries or entities, but not Israel? Moreover, why is this a state matter? What relevance is it to Kansas whether one boycotts a foreign country?
      - zahlman 1y ago
        >How does this apply to the matter at hand? The restrictions on doing business are being imposed on (not by) a private entity, by (not on) the government. >requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel
        anonymars 1y ago
        I'm aware of what the law says. How does that justify such a law? I don't really see any responses to any of the questions I have raised.
        zahlman 1y ago
        You originally asked how the provision holds up against the First Amendment. I showed how it is government contractors being restricted. Government contractors act on behalf of the government. I then showed how the First Amendment does not necessarily protect those who act on behalf of the government, because this is the government placing a limit "on its own speech".
        anonymars 1y ago
        I did not find anything about contractors in the link you provided and the excerpt did not apply. Even if that were present, why should "Congress said so" have any meaning? I am aware the judiciary has occasionally upheld the legality of such laws--just as they have upheld Civil Asset Forfeiture, Qualified Immunity, given us Citizens United, ended the Voting Rights Act, and sundry other decisions that will surely be judged well by future history. Appeal to authority is not a convincing argument.
anonfordays 1y ago
Leftists spent years trying to pass "hate speech" laws and now that right is trying to pass "hate speech" laws leftists are clutching their pearls. It came back to bite.
- anonymars 1y ago
  Agreed, I think at the far end "left" and "right" turn more into a circle than a line: "people shouldn't be allowed to think this way!" But, the trouble is, there's no right answer, only trade-offs. Personally I do prefer dialogue over "canceling." But I also recognize that can also basically allow for an intellectual "denial of service," so to speak. AKA "flooding the zone" That said, seems voters on both left and right oppose these laws more than support them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Public_opinions_on_the_BDS_movement_and_anti-BDS_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Public_opinions_...

zahlman 1y ago

> Tangentially related, I never understood how the anti-BDS laws square with the first amendment At my university, a portion of my dues went to funding BDS efforts (what expenses do they even have?) and I had no clear means to object to this. This was in Canada, but it seems to me perfectly fair to oppose that. That said: > Most anti-BDS laws have taken one of two forms: contract-focused laws requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel; and investment-focused laws, mandating public investment funds to avoid entities boycotting Israel. Substitute, for example, any domestic racial minority for "Israel"; does your opinion change?

anonymars 1y ago
> At my university, a portion of my dues went to funding BDS efforts Surely you can protest that at the university and it is not a government-enforced policy? > Substitute, for example, any domestic racial minority for "Israel" Is "Israel" a race or a country? Should a Canadian not be allowed to boycott the US?
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Is "Israel" a race or a country? Should a Canadian not be allowed to boycott the US? The legislation described does not prevent boycotts, except by government contractors who have a duty to government policy and thus do not necessarily enjoy those protections (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47986 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47986): > Speech restrictions imposed by private entities, and government limits on its own speech, usually do not implicate the First Amendment. As for public investment funds: you'll need to explain to me how saying that X may not invest in Y because Y is refusing to buy things from Z, causes Y to stop being able to refuse to buy things from Z (i.e., compels Y to buy things from Z). If you want to not buy things from Israel, then... just don't. You don't need my money, or a private investment firm's, in order to achieve that.
  - anonymars 1y ago
    > Speech restrictions imposed by private entities, and government limits on its own speech, usually do not implicate the First Amendment How does this apply to the matter at hand? The restrictions on doing business are being imposed on (not by) a private entity, by (not on) the government. The government is free to do business with Israel if it so chooses As a private entity doing business with the government, why is it permissible to boycott other countries or entities, but not Israel? Moreover, why is this a state matter? What relevance is it to Kansas whether one boycotts a foreign country?
    - zahlman 1y ago
      >How does this apply to the matter at hand? The restrictions on doing business are being imposed on (not by) a private entity, by (not on) the government. >requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel
      - anonymars 1y ago
        I'm aware of what the law says. How does that justify such a law? I don't really see any responses to any of the questions I have raised.
        zahlman 1y ago
        You originally asked how the provision holds up against the First Amendment. I showed how it is government contractors being restricted. Government contractors act on behalf of the government. I then showed how the First Amendment does not necessarily protect those who act on behalf of the government, because this is the government placing a limit "on its own speech".
        anonymars 1y ago
        I did not find anything about contractors in the link you provided and the excerpt did not apply. Even if that were present, why should "Congress said so" have any meaning? I am aware the judiciary has occasionally upheld the legality of such laws--just as they have upheld Civil Asset Forfeiture, Qualified Immunity, given us Citizens United, ended the Voting Rights Act, and sundry other decisions that will surely be judged well by future history. Appeal to authority is not a convincing argument.

anonfordays 1y ago

Leftists spent years trying to pass "hate speech" laws and now that right is trying to pass "hate speech" laws leftists are clutching their pearls. It came back to bite.

anonymars 1y ago
Agreed, I think at the far end "left" and "right" turn more into a circle than a line: "people shouldn't be allowed to think this way!" But, the trouble is, there's no right answer, only trade-offs. Personally I do prefer dialogue over "canceling." But I also recognize that can also basically allow for an intellectual "denial of service," so to speak. AKA "flooding the zone" That said, seems voters on both left and right oppose these laws more than support them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Public_opinions_on_the_BDS_movement_and_anti-BDS_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Public_opinions_...