Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SamCarter_SGC t1_it76kio wrote

Reply to comment by LostThyme in ACLU asks supreme court to overturn Arkansas’ anti-boycott law against Israel | Arkansas by Im__Bruce_Wayne__AMA

> Act 710 prohibits Arkansas agencies from investing in or contracting with companies unless they sign a pledge not to boycott Israel or offers a 20% cut in compensation in lieu of signing such a pledge

The government will not do business with your business unless you sign it or pay them a lot of money. As for how they define "boycott", the lack of clarity there seems to be part of the problem.

63

LostThyme t1_it8chig wrote

So, sign an oath of loyalty to foreign nation, or be fined by your own. Doesn't seem like a good idea.

25

Comprehensive-Ad3963 t1_it7fsvl wrote

OK, so what's the 1st Amendment concern?

The state of Arkansas isn't jailing, fining, etc. anyone who boycotts Israel, they're just saying the state government won't do business with companies who do so.

−51

NotConstantine t1_it7gmjt wrote

When the govt interferes with commerce based on the political opinion of the people currently running it, that's a free speech violation.

55

Doomsday31415 t1_it86x7c wrote

Uh, no it's not. That's called sanctions. Various departments set "politically motivated" requirements for companies to do business with them all the time.

−19

Has_hog t1_it89v1p wrote

Lol. Dude do you always just read the first sentence and just go off? This “sanctions” argument is most base level, first sentence reading interpretation possible — it’s clearly more complicated than that or the aclu wouldn’t have a case to challenge the state.

13

fatcIemenza t1_it7l47s wrote

You don't see any issue with the government saying "support our politics or face the penalty"? What if a blue state had a law that said every employer had to donate to Black Lives Matter or they'd have to pay a fine?

30

Bit-Random t1_itb8p3j wrote

That’s a false equivalency, though. They’re saying “don’t boycott Israel or don’t work with us”, and not “all businesses in Arkansas must donate to Israel”.

−2

Doomsday31415 t1_it87986 wrote

This isn't actually uncommon.

The government decides its own guidelines on which businesses it will give subsidies and other funding to.

For example, California's vehicle MPG standards.

−27

GunpowderLad t1_it8p45o wrote

You're just being a troll. You've replied to a bunch of people being obtuse as hell and missing the point entirely.

10

Doomsday31415 t1_it9e7zl wrote

A point that apparently hasn't been made, since I've addressed each reply in turn.

−7

xSciFix t1_ithy45f wrote

MPG standards aren't a political stance in the same way. That's a false equivalency.

No blue state has loyalty to BLM laws.

1

Doomsday31415 t1_itilj3x wrote

As far as the constitution is concerned, both fall squarely under the state's authority to regulate how businesses do business. There may be concerns about the state regulating international commerce, but that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

Also, the BLM example mentioned is a red herring. Keeping your doors open to a certain group is not "donating" to them.

1

PsychoEngineer t1_it7nez6 wrote

> fining,

But this is exactly what they're doing; the 20% penalty, or did you miss that part?

18

Doomsday31415 t1_it87isd wrote

The 20% penalty is to do business with the government without meeting their requirements, not to operate in the state.

−13

PsychoEngineer t1_it889fd wrote

Thus it's a "penalty" which you just admitted... thus a "fine" as the poster said they weren't doing; 6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other.

9

Doomsday31415 t1_it8dx3i wrote

Governments set requirements for corporations to do business with them all the time. This isn't that strange.

−4

PsychoEngineer t1_it8hwnh wrote

But then charging a penalty to certain companies but not others due to a international political issue? I’d like an example please to support your claim that they do similar to this for things… gotta be a foreign issue and limited to penalties related to that foreign issue that certain companies are penalized for and others are not depending on where that companies position is on this foreign issue.

I’ll wait.

7

Doomsday31415 t1_it9e2pw wrote

The US military only provides equipment to movie studios that the US military approves of. All the others have to come up with all that equipment on their own, and are basically doomed to fail as a result.

Your "only this very specific narrow example" is a red herring that ignores that it's very common for the government to provide incentives (e.g. government contracts) for companies on condition of whatever the government wants.

−2