SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
ACLU* national legal director David Cole warns that this new piece of legislation is a serious problem to free speech. He says that just discussing the boycott of Israel could land you in prison for 20 years and fined $1 million.
The right to boycott has a long history in the United States, from the American Revolution to Martin Luther King Jr.'s Montgomery bus boycott to the campaign for divestment from businesses serving apartheid South Africa. Nowadays we celebrate those efforts. But precisely because boycotts are such a powerful form of expression, governments have long sought to interfere with them — from King George III to the police in Alabama, and now to the U.S. Congress.
The Israel Anti-Boycott Act, legislation introduced in the Senate by Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) and in the House by Peter J. Roskam (R-Ill.), would make it a crime to support or even furnish information about a boycott directed at Israel or its businesses called by the United Nations, the European Union or any other "international governmental organization." Violations would be punishable by civil and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and 20 years in prison. The American Civil Liberties Union, where we both work, takes no position for or against campaigns to boycott Israel or any other foreign country. But since our organization's founding in 1920, the ACLU has defended the right to collective action. This bill threatens that right.
As a European myself I find it very strange that such a law can ever be officially proposed. And in the US of all countries where the freedom of speech in codified in the constitution.
What do you make of it?
*American Civil Liberties Union
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday July 26 2017, @06:43PM (11 children)
No chance of it ever holding up in court, but that gives politicians an excuse to show off, vote, and grab donations.
Useless waste of their salaries as far as our elected representatives, though.
My former company added a "don't discuss a boycott of Israel" policy in their annual discrimination training. Given the Jewish CEO, it wasn't surprising, but it was disappointing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:01PM (1 child)
So I can get arrested for discussing BSD?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Farmer Tim on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:47PM
Came for the news, stayed for the soap opera.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:19PM (8 children)
Well, SCOTUS, in its infinite wisdom, has determined that "giving oodles of money to a candidate's election campaign" is free speech.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if "boycotting an apartheid regime" would be found to -not- be free speech.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @08:18PM
That's not quite what they decided.
There's a long legislated history that certain rights are valid for corporations, given that they incorporate the interests of a range of natural persons. So that wasn't really even at issue in Citizens United - corporations have had recognised free speech rights for over forty years at least. Anybody who tells you different is just wrong.
There's also a long legislated history that being obscenely rich, or obscenely poor, does not affect your constitutional rights. To put it crudely, the idea that someone has to be hobbled just because they're rich, holds no legal water. There has to be another reason. A corporate identity as such is not sufficient either - this is also long recognised. In fact, the court specifically called out that, if you could restrict corporate speech, you could restrict corporate media speech, thus making a mockery of the concept of freedom of the press. So, yeah. That doesn't fly either.
What they really found was that the government was, by the back door, building a way that they could legally muzzle the media. Surprise surprise, that's a problem.
There is nothing about this that would lead to a conclusion that somehow discussion of a boycott would not be protected speech.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by KiloByte on Wednesday July 26 2017, @09:36PM (6 children)
We're supplying a randomly picked subset of apartheid regimes with cash and weapons. That country you're talking about gives muslim citizens more rights than the apartheid ones around it -- despite muslims being nominally in power. But failing to "recognize the supremacy of Islam" or to murder unbelievers is somehow unpopular among the regressive Left.
And yeah, banning speech is pretty much always bad. But if you ban Mein Kampf, at least be consistent and ban Koran as well, it calls for murdering those it dislikes in many more places. And unlike the Bible (also a pretty hateful book), it's consistent instead of a pile of self-contradictions its worshippers have been trained to cherry-pick from.
If I'd get to issue legislation, I'd make both allowed. But also I'd remove taxpayer funds from anything that promotes religions that demand elimination of non-believers.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:03PM (4 children)
Guess we should round up all the Westboro Baptists and other extremists now that "right right" is all about taking such people down. Since we're slapping on overly broad labels and applying it to everyone, that means we're just gonna have to get rid of pretty much all the christians, no telling when their xenophobic extremism might pop back up amirite??
(Score: 2) by KiloByte on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:19PM (3 children)
Let's concentrate efforts on ideologies that are actively calling for murder right now, not merely have such calls in an unused corner of their holy books. By "holy books" I put Koran, Mein Kampf, Bible and works of Marx&Engels into one bag. Same for SJWs vs "patriots" (the US is overran by the former, Poland by the latter).
And censorships has historically been the least effective way to stamp out extremism — to the contrary, it merely reinforces both the extremism you're trying to stamp out and the extremism opposite to it.
Censorship has always led to oppression, no exceptions.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:48PM
...like Christianity.
The Branch Davidians in Waco shot at federal agents.
Clearly, they represent -ALL- Christians.
Christians are clearly a violent bunch, set on murder, and -ALL- Christians should be rounded up.
"Kill them all; God will know his own."
...to quote a Christian.
...and I seem to remember The Bible having a directive to stone people.
...as well as The Inquisition burning people to death because they didn't believe in the proper way.
You are simply a bigot who doesn't understand introspection.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday July 28 2017, @11:15AM (1 child)
Das Kapital is kinda the odd one out there, it never "calls for murder". In fact given how incredibly heavy going it is, I'd encourage would-be communists to read all of its three volumes in their entirety because they'll be so numbed by the time they give up halfway through that they'll figure out something more useful to do instead. It has good points, but man, those Victorian-era authors liked to churn out vast volumes of stultifying prose.
In fact Mein Kampf would fall into the same basket. I can't imagine any skinhead who likes to wave it around has ever read more than a few pages into it. The author may have been a great orator, but man was he a tedious writer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @11:14PM
Kropotkin > Marx
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @11:51PM
Not good enough. Remove taxpayer funds from all religion.