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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @07:59PM (11 children)
(D-Md.)
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has recently come up with a "Better Deal" platform where he tries to convince gullible USAians that it's something like FDR's New Deal or Jill Stein's Green New Deal.
It's quite hollow in that it doesn't address the REAL problem that The Donkeys have (their continual pursuit of Oligarchs' money).
.
the lizard people
"take me to your Lizard" (Courtesy of Douglas Adams) [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [futurismic.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by HiThere on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:21PM (9 children)
My opinion of Jill Stein has been irremediably damaged by her recommendation that Green Party supporters vote for Trump. I now consider anything she supports as suspicious baring further evidence.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:50PM (3 children)
Citation needed.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @02:23AM
http://www.snopes.com/jill-stein-endorsed-donald-trump/ [snopes.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday July 28 2017, @04:17PM (1 child)
Sorry, I can't remember the cite. It was right before the election when she said, approximately, "vote for Trump". She didn't exactly endorse him, but she said it was clear she wasn't going to win, so those who support her should vote for Trump. You might call it "praising with faint damns". Previous to that comment I'd been considering voting for her since it was clear that Hillary was going to win in my state anyway. Afterwards I started wondering if she was a Russian agent. (Yeah, pretty weak evidence, but I wondered.)
I'll agree with anyone who says that Hillary was a horrible choice, but after that I held my nose and voted for her as the least bad of the four major parties.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 29 2017, @05:50PM
This is not evidence that towards the end of the campaign she didn't suggest voting for Trump
...but, as the link to Snopes by AC#544968 clearly indicates, Jill has -always- said **Vote for Jill**.
Any other interpretation of some statement by Jill (by lousy media or by you) is simply wrong.
she was less happy with the idea of Hillary as president that with the idea of Trump
Heh. I may say that piss soup is less awful than turd soup but that doesn't mean that I recommend either.
N.B. You need to vet your sources of information better and weed out the junk.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @03:01AM (2 children)
A view from outside the USA: Jill Stein was correct.
However bad Trump may be, Clinton would have been worse.
You can stand a loud, boorish fool, a few silly decisions, and a fair bit of corruption. The corruption is standard, and silly noises don't really hurt anyone.
Clinton would either already, or very soon, have been at war with Iran. And that is a whole different level of pain. Iran is not just another bunch of 'sand niggers' you can drop bombs on with impunity. It would be a long hot war with lots of casualities on both sides and massive amounts of money and power for the MIC.
Trumps increase in military spending is probably compensation for missing out on the US-Iran war.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @03:49AM (1 child)
...except that HiThere was completely wrong.
He has terrible sources of information and does a lousy job of vetting those.
As AC#544968 notes via a link to Snopes, Jill's actual advice was **Vote for Jill. The Reds and The Blues have awful candidates.**
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Disagree) by HiThere on Friday July 28 2017, @04:35PM
She certainly criticized both Trump and Hillary multiple times while campaigning. This is not evidence that towards the end of the campaign she didn't suggest voting for Trump. and I saw a report that she did. I do wish I could remember the context, but there was so much political garbage flooding everything that there's no chance I kept a link, and small chance that if I had it would still be valid.
I just did a brief search, and wasn't able to find the exact article I read, though I did find several where she *indicated* that she was less happy with the idea of Hillary as president that with the idea of Trump. It was in one of those where she was saying the Hillary would be more likely to cause nuclear war.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @03:00PM (1 child)
Huh - this is actually a word. I was wondering if you meant "irredeemably" or something.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday July 28 2017, @04:21PM
You got me. Somehow I missed noticing that even after posting.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @04:34PM
Trump's Raw Deal.