Boycotts of Israel are a protected form of free speech - LA Times

[Tennis]

recent months, a number of states have passed laws or taken other official actions to punish companies that participate in boycotts against Israel. California soon may do the same. But if it does, it will be making a mistake.

You don’t have to support the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to be troubled when state governments in this country penalize American citizens for their political speech. As the Supreme Court has recognized, boycotts are a form of speech, protected under the Constitution.

The BDS movement has been the subject of much heated debate in recent years. It calls on people and companies to boycott Israel until that country ends its occupation of “all Arab lands,” ensures equal legal rights for its Arab citizens and accepts the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the former homes of their families in Israel. Some supporters of BDS accept the “two-state solution” in which Israel and an independent Palestine would exist side by side; others don’t.

One result has been a flurry of actions in state capitals, from a law in Illinois divesting state pension funds from companies refusing to do business in Israel or the Palestinian territories to an executive order by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo providing for the disinvestment by state agencies under his control from companies engaged in “boycott, divestment, or sanctions activity targeting Israel.” Most recently, the New Jersey Legislature passed a bill barring the investment of state pension and annuity funds in companies that boycott Israel or Israeli businesses.

Do such laws violate the 1st Amendment? Although the Supreme Court has held that government may engage in its own “speech” and express its own opinions, it also has held that government may not deny a benefit to a person (or a company) because he holds the “wrong” opinion. In our view, denying state business to an otherwise qualified contractor simply based on its views about Israel — and its participation in a legal boycott — goes beyond “government speech” and raises serious constitutional concerns.

In California, the situation has grown even more complicated. Opponents of BDS in the Legislature previously proposed a bill that would have forbidden state contracts with companies engaged in a boycott of Israel. But after legal objections, the legislation was radically reconfigured.

The latest version, approved by a state Senate committee last week, no longer seeks to penalize boycotts directly. Rather, it targets violations of existing anti-discrimination laws that take place under the pretext of a boycott or other “policy” aimed at “any sovereign nation or people recognized by the government of the United States, including, but not limited to, the nation and people of Israel.” The bill would require any person who seeks to contract with the state to certify, under penalty of perjury, that it hasn’t engaged in discrimination as part of such a policy.

This shift to an emphasis on individual rights may solve some of the 1st Amendment problems in earlier versions, but it also raises the question of why this proposed law is necessary at all. The state’s Public Contract Code already says that contractors may not discriminate “on the basis of age, sex, pregnancy, maternity leave status, marital status, race, nationality, country of origin, ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or political opinion.” Why is it necessary to reiterate what already is the law — and to throw in a specific mention of boycotts and Israel?

The proponents of this bill are desperately eager to single out and punish companies that engage in boycotts against Israel. Realizing that their initial proposal ran contrary to the free speech protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, they have now come back with a convoluted, redundant and most likely ineffectual bill that allows them to say they’ve passed an anti-BDS bill.

In California, as elsewhere in this country, support for Israel is strong — which is why laws aimed at boycotts of the Jewish state are a solution in search of a problem.

Politicians are free to denounce BDS if they choose. But they must do so without infringing on the rights of their constituents.

It's sad that this is the effect that money in politics has. The politicians are willing to shut down the citizens' right to free speech over political gain. It's crazy that they're trying to quash a movement which wants equal rights for all citizens and an end to illegal settlements.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/edito...ampaign=buffer

[PC2]

Coercing people and organizations to agree with your stance is bad from either side.

Canada just passed a motion earlier this year to call for the government to “condem any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.” But I'm not sure whether this is just saying the government has an opinion or whether they could act on the motion in some way.

[Milchshake]

Did the article cover the irony of NY state endorsing a boycott of South North Carolina over gay rights. Only weeks later to have Gov. Coumo sign a surprise executive order against BDS?

[ControlWarrior]

Israel is not America's enemy, despite what many what to believe.

[Tennis]

Israel is not America's enemy, despite what many what to believe.

What does your post have to do with the topic of free speech exactly?

[Bushtuckrman]

It's sad that this is the effect that money in politics has. The politicians are willing to shut down the citizens' right to free speech over political gain. It's crazy that they're trying to quash a movement which wants equal rights for all citizens and an end to illegal settlements.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/edito...ampaign=buffer

Have you been hiding under a rock somewhere?

The liberal oppression scale clearly shows that the higher up the list you are the more oppressed you are and therefore you cannot be criticised however you're free to say whatever to those below you:

1. Muslims
2. Blacks
3. Trans
4. Gays
5. Jews
6. Women

Criticising those above you will mean you are branded all sorts of buzzwords on the internet. Or your home raided by police if you live in nazi Germany 2016.

[Shadowferal]

Israel is not America's enemy, despite what many what to believe.

USS Liberty was deliberately destroyed.

[Tempguy]

I don't see what you mean? What i read is that boycotts and shit are fine, but politicians are also allowed to say they disagree.

free speech both ways. I support that

- - - Updated - - -

Have you been hiding under a rock somewhere?

The liberal oppression scale clearly shows that the higher up the list you are the more oppressed you are and therefore you cannot be criticised however you're free to say whatever to those below you:

1. Muslims
2. Blacks
3. Trans
4. Gays
5. Jews
6. Women

Criticising those above you will mean you are branded all sorts of buzzwords on the internet. Or your home raided by police if you live in nazi Germany 2016.

I think its more

1: Muslim
2: Women
3:trans
4: Gays
5: Jews
6: Blacks (if you are killed by a white only)

[Espe]

Criticising those above you will mean you are branded all sorts of buzzwords on the internet.

You are free to proudly proclaim your vitriolic bigotry and absolute ignorance, others are free to laugh in your face. Just don't go making threats about killing or terrorizing people and you'll be fine.

Enjoying the victim complex though, it suits you

[ControlWarrior]

What does your post have to do with the topic of free speech exactly?

Just expressing my free speech

[PC2]

Enjoying the victim complex though, it suits you

Are you pro-personal responsibility?

[Theodarzna]

Cool, I still buy Israeli makeup and these tea crackers from Israel.

[Sky High]

as they should be, not that I really care about the issues surrounding Israel that much. they can catch hands with each other for all eternity for all I care.

[Mahourai]

USS Liberty was deliberately destroyed.

There is little credible evidence that this was a malicious rather than incompetent act.

Also, boycotting Israel on a large scale will probably cause you to run afoul of the Office of Antiboycott Compliance. It is actually illegal under the Export Administration Act to "further or support the boycott of Israel sponsored by the Arab League". BDS probably qualifies under the former.
EDIT:

What do the Laws Prohibit?

Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes:

Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.

Source

[Theodarzna]

USS Liberty was deliberately destroyed.

I maintain the US was spying on Israel for the Arabs, what was that ship really doing there anyway?

[Wells]

There is little credible evidence that this was a malicious rather than incompetent act.

Also, boycotting Israel on a large scale will probably cause you to run afoul of the Office of Antiboycott Compliance. It is actually illegal under the Export Administration Act to "further or support the boycott of Israel sponsored by the Arab League". BDS probably qualifies under the former.
EDIT:


Source

Would like to see how that one stands up in court.

[oplawlz]

It's sad that this is the effect that money in politics has. The politicians are willing to shut down the citizens' right to free speech over political gain. It's crazy that they're trying to quash a movement which wants equal rights for all citizens and an end to illegal settlements.

As long as it's ok to boycott all products from other groups I don't agree with that's fine.

[garr21]

You are free to proudly proclaim your vitriolic bigotry and absolute ignorance, others are free to laugh in your face. Just don't go making threats about killing or terrorizing people and you'll be fine.

Enjoying the victim complex though, it suits you

What he said is 100% true. As a black gay man i can shit over straight white males all i want according to the "rules" never mind if they don't deserve it or not. According to the internet i should blame the white man of today for actions that happened 500 years ago. But i don't because i am better than those middle class twats who spew this crap. Just waiting for you to call me a Uncle tom haha


Oh and i want to mention that your sig gives off the message that it is only democracy if the side you are on wins. Dispite how many times you use the word "anti-intellectualism"

[Mahourai]

Would like to see how that one stands up in court.

I'd imagine pretty well. These are not new regulations.

[Wells]

I'd imagine pretty well. These are not new regulations.

New isn't any guarantee of anything. As BDS is clearly a form of speech they'd have to present a damn strong case for national interest in stopping it.