Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday July 26 2017, @06:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the chilling-effect dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Hartree on Wednesday July 26 2017, @08:08PM (12 children)

    by Hartree (195) on Wednesday July 26 2017, @08:08PM (#544836)

    "As a European myself I find it very strange that such a law can ever be officially proposed."

    You can propose anything. I'm sure that some in Brussels have proposed some pretty wild things that have zero chance of being made into law.

    In the US, the system is that the legislative branch can pass pretty much anything it wants, and the president can choose to sign it, but the judicial branch can then declare it unconstitutional. Usually, when this sort of hoorah comes up they don't have the votes to pass it in the first place.

    It makes for some interesting political theater. The side proposing $ridiculous_proposal can say "We tried, but the other side stopped us." to constituents, and the side against it can say "Look how crazy those on the other side are!".

    Both sides get useful campaign talking points with little real political fallout.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @08:41PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @08:41PM (#544856)

    the judicial branch can then declare it unconstitutional

    Let's remember that The Orange Clown's favorite president is Andrew Jackson.

    Let's now remember Jackson's comment about the unconstitutionality of the forced "resettlement" of Native Americans (AKA "The Trail of Tears" where bronzed-colored people were dispossessed of their ancestral lands and driven like cattle to Oklahoma):
    "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." [google.com]

    .
    Let's further remember that Merrick Garland, Obama's nominee to SCOTUS, did not get a vote from the Senate.
    In fact, a hearing for him was never even scheduled.

    Instead, Trump got Neil Gorsuch, who appears to be more reactionary than Attila the Hun.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 1) by mayo2y on Wednesday July 26 2017, @08:58PM (9 children)

      by mayo2y (6520) on Wednesday July 26 2017, @08:58PM (#544866)

      Gorsuch is a strict constitutionalist. Attila the Hun was neither right nor left.

      Re Andrew Jackson he was for universal male suffrage (a step in the right direction). He thought power was too concentrated in Banks, was against big business and against crony capitalism, was against eminent domain abuses, and advocated for the small farmer and the working man.

      He was also a racist, violent bigot but he was in many ways a "labor" president.

      His biography is fascinating.

      Re the Supreme Court and enforcing rules - I guess you're against Sanctuary Cities as the power to set immigration laws rests in the Federal Government and not the states. (Same as tariffs).

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Wednesday July 26 2017, @09:52PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday July 26 2017, @09:52PM (#544882) Journal

        Re the Supreme Court and enforcing rules - I guess you're against Sanctuary Cities as the power to set immigration laws rests in the Federal Government and not the states. (Same as tariffs).

        Sanctuary cities don't violate that in any way.

        First, the Constitution *doesn't* actually specify that the federal government is responsible for immigration, although as with everything else you could make an argument through the commerce clause.

        But more importantly, the point of sanctuary cities isn't that they refuse federal attempts to enforce immigration; rather, it is that they won't enforce it themselves. As you said, immigration laws is a federal issue, not a city issue. Federal ICE agents can come through at any time and start trying to bust people for immigration offenses, and there's nothing the city can do to stop it. But there's no law that requires the city to use their own resources to enforce those federal laws -- if the feds are so concerned about it, they can assign their own agents. It's no different than when Obama deprioritized enforcement against "DREAMers" or medical marijuana...or even when a local cop pulls you over and lets you go with a warning. As long as they're not violating other laws in the process (ie, discrimination) the executive branch can freely decide which offenses to prosecute and which to ignore.

        There's a VERY significant difference between having a constitutionally valid law that you choose not to enforce vs enforcing a law that has been found to be unconstitutional. And an even bigger difference when the first case is really a different government's constitutionally valid law.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:29PM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:29PM (#544897)

        Gorsuch is a jerk who crafted his opinions in order to audition for the SCOTUS job.[1]

        6 out of 7 judges who rules on the case, thought that The Frozen Trucker did the right thing.
        Only Gorsuch voted in favor of the corporation and thought that the guy should have allowed himself to freeze to death in order to abide by company rules.

        Gorsuch is a sub-human piece of shit.

        [1] ...a job for which Garland had been nominated and for which he deserved a hearing.
        ...if you go by the Constitution.

        .
        Jackson [...] thought power was too concentrated in Banks

        ...so he destroyed the Second bank of the United States and set up The Panic of 1837 (a depression that lasted 1837 - 1842).
        The dude was a nitwit.
        ...and, despite that, they put his picture on the money. WTF??

        .
        neither right nor left

        Those are ECONOMIC terms. I wasn't talking economics.
        ...and neither Capitalism nor Socialism had been invented then.
        Do make an attempt to use correct terminology.

        .
        the power to set immigration laws

        Local governments are under no obligation to spend local tax money to enforce federal law themselves nor to assist federal agents.
        If the Feds want to pick up people, they can do it on their own dime.
        (This sort of thing is what caused Prohibition to fall apart.)

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @12:57AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @12:57AM (#544945)

          Garland had his hearing. It went roughly like this:

          Senate: "Talk to the hand, we're not interested in anyone that Obama might nominate. NEXT!"

          You make it sound as if the senate just couldn't get it together. They did, just fine, and made a decision not to even bother.

          For once in their miserable lives, they did something efficient.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @02:38AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @02:38AM (#544976)

          6 out of 7 judges who rules on the case, thought that The Frozen Trucker did the right thing.
          Only Gorsuch voted in favor of the corporation and thought that the guy should have allowed himself to freeze to death in order to abide by company rules.

          You seem to have trouble understanding the role of a court. They were not (supposed to be) ruling on whether the trucker did the right thing, or about what he should have done. They were not (supposed to be) ruling on whether the company was right or wrong, morally speaking, for firing him over it. They were ruling on whether the company's decision to fire him violated a specific whistleblower provision in the law.

          FWIW, it's obvious to me that whoever made the decision to fire him over that is a piece of subhuman garbage -- but that doesn't mean they were breaking the law.

          The law at issue forbids firing an employee for "refus[ing] to operate a vehicle because ... the employee has a reasonable apprehension of serious injury to the employee or the public because of the vehicle's hazardous safety or security condition" -- the question then is whether dropping the trailer and driving away in the tractor really constitutes "refus[ing] to operate" the truck, or as a corollary, whether "waiting for help" is "operat[ing] a vehicle". And that's really a good question -- this case is right on the edge of what that law covers, and I'm not sure Gorsuch was right. But at least he had some reasonable interpretation of the actual law; contrast your choice to make it about "right thing" / "should have allowed himself to freeze to death", rather that to engage with the text of the law, and explain why Gorsuch's interpretation is wrong.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @03:37AM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @03:37AM (#545000)

            Some facts:
            The reason he had stopped was that the vehicle's brakes were inoperative.
            (That's the fault of the company.)

            When the brakes of a tractor-trailer fail, they fail-safe i.e. they lock in the no-go condition.
            To have operated the vehicle, he would have had to literally drag the trailer with its locked-up breaks.

            This would have quickly destroyed the tires.
            It would have also been extremely dangerous.

            In addition, anyone who wanted to steal the trailer (in sub-zero weather) would have encountered the same circumstances.

            What the trucker did was what any logical human would have done.
            To remove humanity from the picture (as 6 of 7 judges refused to do) would NOT serve justice.
            It's the reason there are humans as judges and not automatons.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:29PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:29PM (#545452)

              Ooh, great. Facts. We like facts! Facts are good. Facts are our friends!

              Fact: He did not do as he was told with respect to the operation of the vehicle.

              Fact: He abandoned the trailer and the cargo within.

              Fact: As long as he was inside an operational tractor rig, he was not going to freeze ("frozen trucker" crap notwithstanding)

              Fact: Now the company has been told they can't fire a guy they can't trust to do his damn job.

              Fact-tastic!

              So, speaking of facts, it kinda looks like Gorsuch is the kind of judge who will follow the actual law. And, as a matter of fact, I'm OK with that. The law is about specifics, not good feelings.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @11:54PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @11:54PM (#545528)

                I hope that you are in exactly the same circumstances one day and that you follow the company's directives to the letter.

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @12:43AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @12:43AM (#545543)

                  I can save you some time.

                  I'm not a trucker.

                  (I have done dirty, dangerous, difficult jobs, and I have stood up for myself sometimes. Sometimes they acknowledged my points and relented, other times they fired me. But I didn't whine about it, I went and found a job that looked less shithead-centric. Obviously, this makes me a capitalist stooge. I'll pencil in some time to care on ... ohh, how's Q3 of 2034 for you?)

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @10:08PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @10:08PM (#545476)

              Some facts:
              The reason he had stopped was that the vehicle's brakes were inoperative.
              (That's the fault of the company.)

              When the brakes of a tractor-trailer fail, they fail-safe i.e. they lock in the no-go condition.
              To have operated the vehicle, he would have had to literally drag the trailer with its locked-up breaks.

              This would have quickly destroyed the tires.
              It would have also been extremely dangerous.

              In addition, anyone who wanted to steal the trailer (in sub-zero weather) would have encountered the same circumstances.

              Those are facts.

              What the trucker did was what any logical human would have done.

              I'd call that one an opinion, as humans are notoriously hard to predict, but it's an opinion I strongly agree with. (I could quibble about logical humans preparing themselves a little better beforehand -- what would he have done if the tractor, rather than the trailer, had broke down? -- but that's really beside the point.)

              But you seem to think that it matters; that is, that judges should say "Hey, I (or any logical human, it's all the same thing) would have done the same as the trucker, so screw the law and punish the company!" Will you be as happy when you're the one being punished, despite never having violated any actual law, because the judge has sympathy for the guy suing you? Will you exclaim "That's why we have humans as judges, to screw us over for obeying the law!"?

              Why even bother with law -- just let judges apply their "humanity" to every case individually!

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday July 26 2017, @08:49PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 26 2017, @08:49PM (#544862) Journal

    I'm sure that some in Brussels have proposed some pretty wild things that have zero chance of being made into law.

    Okay, great for Brussels.

    But this is the United States of America. We are number one!

    In the US, wild (and outright crazy) things have a greater than zero chance of being made into law. And the crazier something is, the more likely it makes it into law. Or into office.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.