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: 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.