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This discussion has been archived.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, Touché) by Arik on Wednesday July 26 2017, @08:15PM (8 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Wednesday July 26 2017, @08:15PM (#544839) Journal
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:19PM (3 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:19PM (#544893) Journal

    Precisely!

    And in particular "abridging the freedom of speech".

    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:54AM (2 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:54AM (#544959) Journal
      It's worn away a bit at a time. About a generation ago they started slipping an exception in for 'hate speech' and just like a shim that's been used to carve exceptions. Now they just conflate BDS with anti-semitism and thus 'hate speech' and hey!? how could anyone have a problem with this? It's just common sense. Are you some kind of anti-semite?

      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:38AM (1 child)

        by kaszz (4211) on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:38AM (#545039) Journal

        Time for some restoration?

        I had some thoughts that allowing people to say that "faggots should die" etc is something that should be outlawed. It seems reasonable. But after a while it becomes obvious it's such a slippery slope that it's a really bad idea and has to be handled like a nuisance otherwise everybody gets to have their pet expression forbidden, just a little and then some more and then you got oppression all out.
        Maybe however outright calling for violent acts is forbidden in USA?

        The American approach of "abridging the freedom of speech" period. Is harsh but efficient. No ifs or buts. No censorship period.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @10:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @10:17PM (#545485)

          I had some thoughts that allowing people to say that "faggots should die" etc is something that should be outlawed.

          That's absurd. Of course homosexuals should die. You think we've got a population problem now, wait and see what it's like when nobody dies anymore. And if you say, "sure, someone must die, but the heterosexuals can do it so homosexuals don't have to", you'll soon have the opposite problem -- when you've winnowed humanity down to a race of immortal homosexuals, there will be no population growth, and as mankind spreads out into the universe, the population density, and thus the benefits of civilization, will diminish without end.

          I think it's pretty clear that faggots should die, just like the rest of us.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @11:00PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @11:00PM (#544910)

    Then how do free speech zones work?
    Right of the people at assemble

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @02:40AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @02:40AM (#544980)

      Then how do free speech zones work?
      Right of the people at assemble

      Then how do prepositions work?
      Right of the people from assemble

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:40AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:40AM (#545042) Journal

      Free speech zones works such to make it inconvenient for people to go there and thus not hearing your free speech. And also provides the thugs with a known place to intimidate any opposition and to identify and stalk them. Great, huh? ;)

      Or people could be allowed to express themselves everywhere at anytime..

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:33PM (#545455)

      Realistically, Free Speech Zones are a way of corralling people too stupid to figure out that they would reach more and be more effective online, and that they can organise their own photo-ops when and where they like, provided they're not interfering with others.