Comments
Upset-Ad4844 t1_it5sux9 wrote
About time, ACLU.
Since SCOTUS declared that money equals speech, it is an easy argument to make that anti-boycott laws violate the 1st Amendment.
Mist_Rising t1_it5wgwg wrote
This isn't the first time the anti BDS laws have been sued - successfully - in courts including the supreme court. ACLU is the usual challenger.
The "rights" group that hasn't seemingly fought them is unsurprisingly the Anti deformation league (ADL), which claims they do a 'case by case' decision but seem to always decide they approve of the laws barring you from your first amendment to protest Israel.
Upset-Ad4844 t1_it5xe9o wrote
Thanks, Mist. I looked them up on Wikipedia because I'm not very familiar.
It seems they are pretty entrenched as a pro-Israel group and do not even pretend to be apolitical. Is this a fair appraisal?
[deleted] t1_it5yfbb wrote
[removed]
corvus_torvus t1_it5yrc8 wrote
They're practically an organ of the Israeli government.
RoxxieMuzic t1_it5z043 wrote
Thank you for recognizing the difference.
Mist_Rising t1_it5z8o1 wrote
Close enough, they're what people refer to when they say pro Israeli lobbyists in the US. They're also the opposite of B'Tselem which claims Israeli is apartheid and ADL called the report anti semitic. @_@
thedudesews t1_it60gpw wrote
It’s an important distinction.
[deleted] t1_it61bg5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it62yff wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it62zbx wrote
[removed]
Tracieattimes t1_it634ch wrote
I wonder how the aclu had standing
[deleted] t1_it638f0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it63jgr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it63srv wrote
[removed]
Mist_Rising t1_it6470a wrote
>The ACLU defended Nazis
They defended the first amendment in this case. Not sure if you're aware of that or deliberately trying to avoid mentioning that was the argument but Skokie was about the right to assemble.
Mist_Rising t1_it649ra wrote
They're probably suing on behalf of someone affected. It's not hard to find standing with these laws.
[deleted] t1_it64l6r wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it64nnu wrote
[deleted]
My_Homework_Account t1_it64v6u wrote
So B'nai B'rith and the ADL are wrong, B'Tselem is right.
Thanks for your support making it apparent on which is which
Mist_Rising t1_it65crp wrote
Lmao I fixed a slight mistake and he really unveiled some things I wasn't expecting. Holy shit calling AI fascist...
[deleted] t1_it65zry wrote
[removed]
SacrificialPwn t1_it67f18 wrote
They defend civil liberties, not the person/group. A protected right to free speech is no longer protected nor a right if the state can determine what's allowed to be spoken or believed. I'd rather have a world where people can voice support or opposition to a country, than one where you are penalized for voicing either
[deleted] t1_it67tao wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it680js wrote
[removed]
Upset-Ad4844 t1_it697pa wrote
They took a stand back then for the right to free speech.
Free speech is ugly.
Freedom is ugly when people disagree.
That's why the right to free speech so often seems self-contradictory, at times hurtful.
It takes a lot of guts in the belief that it is ultimately for the best of all people in the long run.
Thanks for your response.
Upset-Ad4844 t1_it69n1f wrote
Thanks for your response
[deleted] t1_it6buwy wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it6ct26 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it6fupu wrote
[removed]
PorkshireTerrier t1_it6is2u wrote
Lmao the free market is king, unless it affects me and what I think god is
[deleted] t1_it6qze5 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_it6v0qy wrote
[removed]
NoHalf2998 t1_it6vbr6 wrote
Wow. That’s quite the history of racism in your comment history
[deleted] t1_it6w4oy wrote
[removed]
Dauvis t1_it7162n wrote
Yeah, they are one of the groups that promote the narrative that criticism of the Israel government policies is antisemitism.
LostThyme t1_it73om3 wrote
Explain this to me like I'm stupid. How do you outlaw a boycott? A boycott is when you stop doing something. As far as I know, I have never engaged economically with Israel, but that's not a boycott. Unless I announce it's a boycott, then it is. Now I say I've ended my boycott. My actions have not changed at all, only my decoration of intent. I don't see how that can be outlawed.
[deleted] t1_it7516f wrote
[removed]
SamCarter_SGC t1_it76kio wrote
> 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.
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_it7k3m6 wrote
[removed]
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?
manicexister t1_it7lj9c wrote
That's how I feel.
PsychoEngineer t1_it7nez6 wrote
> fining,
But this is exactly what they're doing; the 20% penalty, or did you miss that part?
[deleted] t1_it7sb34 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it7sdgu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it7slas wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it7te8r wrote
[removed]
eyeofthecodger t1_it7upsv wrote
Hopefully, Texas is next.
[deleted] t1_it7uvbb wrote
[removed]
R_V_Z t1_it7y10k wrote
> Since SCOTUS declared that money equals speech
Only when it's convenient, not universally. Otherwise Civil Forfeiture would be considered a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Bob_Juan_Santos t1_it7ygpy wrote
why do people have a such hard on for Israel? I mean, i lived there for 2 years as a kid and I enjoyed the place, but damn, the amount of bending over backwards for Israel is crazy.
[deleted] t1_it80zvo wrote
[removed]
LongShoeLace t1_it848h6 wrote
weak minorities 👍
minorities trying to become independent and united 👎
Mellemhunden t1_it85hnb wrote
Money and religious doctrine
dkran t1_it85yg7 wrote
That’s an interesting argument
dkran t1_it86cpc wrote
Yeah, because the US government lets us protest so peacefully… rolls eyes
I get it that you can protest in a much more pronounced way than many countries, but I definitely think the right to protest in the US has been dying since the 90s. Look at the laws desantis passed in Florida…
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.
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.
Doomsday31415 t1_it87isd wrote
The 20% penalty is to do business with the government without meeting their requirements, not to operate in the state.
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.
screech_owl_kachina t1_it89j63 wrote
Why are we as a condition of work, signing loyalty oaths to a country neither party in the contract is affiliated with and conducting business that otherwise doesn't involve the 3rd party in any way?
screech_owl_kachina t1_it89rd0 wrote
If armed police show up to intimidate you into stopping, if not physically intervening to stop you, pretty much any time you have a protest for a non-right wing cause, do you actually have the right to assemble?
dkran t1_it89uw1 wrote
spins back time to Kent State
Edit: you’re totally right that it’s only been non right wing riots. UCLA, Kent state, Vietnam war in general, Occupy Wall Street, Rodney King, George Floyd…
Then we have Jan 6th.
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.
[deleted] t1_it89zoe wrote
[removed]
screech_owl_kachina t1_it8a7b4 wrote
Two years ago cops were gassing people so much they ran out of gas and shot journalists in the face and destroyed medical supplies. Don't even need to go back to the 60s.
aLittleQueer t1_it8a8l7 wrote
This was my question. How could they possibly enforce such a law?
Can we please have a country not run by idiots? Too soon?
dkran t1_it8ab4u wrote
I remember. I edited my post to reflect your viewpoint too..
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.
Doomsday31415 t1_it8dx3i wrote
Governments set requirements for corporations to do business with them all the time. This isn't that strange.
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.
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.
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.
Doomsday31415 t1_it9e7zl wrote
A point that apparently hasn't been made, since I've addressed each reply in turn.
[deleted] t1_it9hkl9 wrote
[removed]
Mist_Rising t1_it9tt8y wrote
>This was my question. How could they possibly enforce such a law?
The enforcement mechanism is that you can't get money from the government if you have shown active signs of working against Israel, such as in any comments or action. It's fairly loose on interpretation too.
[deleted] t1_it9uebv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ita3gqe wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ita3ybe wrote
[removed]
ThereminLiesTheRub t1_ital7s0 wrote
Razorbacks are not kosher, y'all
LordOfThePinkyRings t1_itb7xm5 wrote
Anti-deformation league are strongly against…birth defects? 😉
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”.
[deleted] t1_itev4v6 wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_itjr4gv wrote
[deleted] t1_itjr74w wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itubvmm wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itucfaf wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itud34w wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it5rhgi wrote
[removed]