US bill to ban Israel boycotts faces right-wing backlash over free speech
US bill to ban Israel boycotts faces right-wing backlash over free speech
www.aljazeera.com
US bill to ban Israel boycotts faces right-wing backlash over free speech
10 comments
-
-
When a shitbag like MTG opposes your bill for the right reasons, you’re completely checked out from reality. Fuck zionists in their stupid asses.
-
I don't think it is for the right reasons. Whatever she says, I think she is opposing it because she hates Jews, not because she cares about Palestine or free speech. For example I suspect that making it illegal to boycott Russia, she'd be all for.
-
-
The original legislation prohibits boycotting a country friendly to the US based on an “agreement with, a requirement of, or a request from or on behalf” of another nation. It imposes penalties of up to $1m and 20 years in prison for violations.
Okay is it me or is this already really fucked up?
-
They just need to carve out a religious exemption.
10 comments
How do you ban a boycott? Forced consumption?
A lot of things in legal-world can actually work this way. Intent matters. So if you're distributing a document that calls for boycotting Israel, that can be illegal (I mean... arguably, I guess, under this awful law). If you're in charge of a purchasing agency, and you suddenly drop all your Israel-aligned contracts, that can be illegal. If you're denying mortgages to people of a certain color, that can be illegal.
No one can stop you from the individual actions, but if someone can prove that it was part of a coordinated effort to achieve one particular goal (which it kind of has to be coordinated in order to achieve any impact) then it can be illegal.
If your soda machine is not a Sodastream, you’re under suspicion.
The first of those should fail under free speech, so long as it doesn't call for overt harm the proposal of a boycott would be similar to arguing against a political candidate.
The second would be difficult to argue unless the company had a formal procurement process that mandated bids and specific rules it could be said they went against.
The last is more classic racist denial and could certainly be prosecuted, but somewhat turns the tables in that the provider is refusing service to a potential client.
I forget the outcome of the 'gay wedding cakes' case from a while back, but the general argument is that while a vendor should serve all valid customers equally, a client need not give equal chance to a vendor who they disagree with the policies of.