3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.