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: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 26 2017, @06:44PM (22 children)
Well I guess the silver lining is that it doesn't even have enough co-sponsors to be proposed, yet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:05PM (12 children)
But apparently it's a bipartisan push. Because ignoring the Constitution is a warm, fuzzy thing that can bring us all together!
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:34PM (8 children)
Where "all" is made easier by the absence of representatives of certain groups [aljazeera.com].
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:56PM (3 children)
Maybe they should, I dunno, fucking assimilate. If they want to live in an Islamic country, pack your shit up and head back where you came from.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:58PM (2 children)
If you were properly assimilated into a civilized society you'd realize that spewing profanity over mundane issues makes you look like a lunatic.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @09:44PM (1 child)
no you're a jerk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:09PM
No, YOU are the jerk, jerk!
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:12PM (3 children)
From the article [aljazeera.com]..
No shit. But no worry, there are countries people like this can feel at home. It's called Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Algeria etc. Daily stomachache trumpeted from the local pray corner, weekly beheading, no welfare, female slavery (your mum, sister etc), last rate universities, theological police, occasional bombing etc. All to make it so home sweet home as possible.
One plane ticket and all that horrible freedom, half naked girls, enterprise etc will gone from the daily life.
Americans don't have any obligation to make any particular religion or ideology at home. The constitution simple states that people have the freedom to exercise it at home etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @11:01PM
Americans don't have any obligation to make any particular religion or ideology at home
Clearly, you haven't been paying attention to what's happening in Jesusland. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 27 2017, @11:25AM
There are basically 4 areas of law that in fact give religious minorities rights:
1. The First Amendment, which you mention but seem to not care about: Muslims can, for instance, legally pray in a public park, just like Christians and Jews can, so long as they aren't interfering with other people's use of the park.
2. The Fourteenth Amendment, which extends the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion to state law.
3. Equal Employment Opportunity, which makes it illegal for companies with more than 15 employees to discriminate against an employee or potential hire because of their religious views. For instance, it's illegal to deny somebody a job because they are an atheist.
4. Hate crimes, which increases the penalty for crimes because they were motivated by a goal of discriminating against somebody's religion. For example, if somebody like you beat up a Muslim because they were a Muslim, that would carry a heavier penalty than beating up a Muslim for his lunch money.
It sure sounds like you think religious freedom only applies to those religions you've deemed acceptable, which is not how that works. Also, your idea of what Muslims actually are like is absolutely at odds with what the vast majority of Muslims are actually like: For instance, most Iranians don't like the religious laws they live under.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 27 2017, @06:37PM
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
Nah, nevermind, we're the land of the weak and cowardly now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @08:46PM
anything to get that AIPAC $$$ into election acvounts...
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:12AM (1 child)
Hey, there are people at AIPAC who paid good money for this bill! We can't have legislators re-negging on their backroom deals, now can we?
AIPAC is closely allied with the very people that the Boycott-Divest-Sanction folks are upset with, namely the Israeli Likud Party. The Israeli Likud Party has explicitly stated in its charter that its goal is the annexation of the entirety of the territories occupied since 1967, and the expelling or killing of Arab residents of those areas as needed to ensure that the majority of the population of the newly expanded Israel is Jewish.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 27 2017, @03:04PM
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:05PM (8 children)
And it likely won't be. Passing the law isn't the point.
Congresscritters aren't stupid*. They know this has almost no hope of passage, and they certainly know that it will be shot down immediately on constitutional grounds if it does pass by the courts.
This is grandstanding. It's getting your name associated with an idea, in a way that you hope will attract dollars and political support in the future. It's a way to go "on the record" with your support for a position - I care about this so much I introduced legislation to fix what I call the problem! It's daring others to take a position opposing you so you can try to beat them up with it later.
This is not prospective law. It's symbolism.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:08PM (4 children)
Oops - forgot to actually include the footnote in parent about congresscritters not being stupid.
OK, maybe they ARE stupid, but they're stupid in relatively predictable ways. And thinking this could possibly become real law in the US is not one of those ways.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:39PM (3 children)
why is this not being called virtue signaling by the anti-SJW warriors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:49PM
Anti-Zionism is not a virtue to them, so they see no need to signal that by screaming "virtue signaling."
Now, compare and contrast. On the right side of the aisle in the One Party's PR department we see anti-Zionism and Islam as horrible things. On the left side of the aisle in the One Party's PR department we see anti-Islam and (some slight parts of) Zionism as horrible things.
I hope that helps.
(Score: 2) by http on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:52PM
Because then they would be applying the label to themselves.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday July 27 2017, @04:31AM
I'm the Alt-Right guy here. I wouldn't object to calling this virtue signaling. But it is far more dangerous than the garden variety SJW crap.
Btw, you wanna see real flaming about this horrid bill, come on over to the Alt-Right and get your fill. Vox Day for example has been blazing away with both barrels against it:
AIPAC vs. 1st Amendment [blogspot.hk] First post on the topic
Diasporans, cucks and free speech [blogspot.hk] Grudging respect for National Review's cucks working up the courage to denounce this
All Americans are now Anti-Semites [blogspot.hk] Collected twitter abuse plus another head on attack.
(Score: 1) by WillR on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:12PM
Most laws are, we're only paying attention to this one because its so clearly unconstitutional.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:15PM (1 child)
Follow the sheckels....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @04:31PM
Don't you me follow the thirty pieces of silver?