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 tangomargarine on Wednesday July 26 2017, @09:53PM (6 children)
You act like the Palestinians have no blood on their hands. Go back and read the history of the British Mandate. I especially liked the part where there was the Arab terrorist guy running around with his band of insurgents randomly killing Jews, then when the Brits got tired of it they holed his ass up in a cave and killed him. Then suddenly Palestinians are wailing that they killed him.
The Palestinians could've had a two-state solution; they didn't want that. They could've lived in a one-state solution; they didn't want. They just wanted it all. And then people like you act surprised that the war happened in 1948. And the next one. And the next one...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:31PM (1 child)
Because they could see what happened to the Native Americans when a bunch of people from across the sea started coming over and claiming land.
There was resistance, there was appeasement, but in the end they were marginalized in their own land. One thing remaining is for Israel to get the Native Palestinians addicted to the bottle and dole.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 27 2017, @02:56PM
Hahahahahahahaha...not if you believe the way Wikipedia tells it. Wikipedia is supposed to be liberal-slanted, and isn't backing the Palestinians a big liberal platform thing? Maybe I should go back and read it again but my general impression was any time the Brits or Israelis proposed basically anything, the response was "go fuck yourselves."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:23AM (3 children)
You are acting like the Palestinians are some kind of monolithic group. They aren't, and never have been.
- You have Hamas, who has the strategy of fighting Israel to the best of their ability using whatever weapons they can get their hands on, and the goal of wiping Israel off the map.
- You have Fatah, who has the strategy of offering concessions to Israel in the hopes of making a permanent treaty with them, and the goal of not losing the entirety of the West Bank territory they now control.
- You have most everybody else, who doesn't care all that much about which side wins but does wish that they could plant an olive grove or do something else to make a living without the Israelis putting a stop to it because the decided that would be a nice place for a settlement or checkpoint.
Treating those that aren't part of Hamas like they're part of Hamas is unjustified and illegal under many provisions of the Geneva Conventions.
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, @02:52PM (2 children)
Assuming I'm talking about Hamas is several decades too recent. I'm not talking about the clusterfuck the place is now; I'm talking about Mandatory Palestine into the '48 war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Legislative_Council_election,_1923 [wikipedia.org]
The Palestinians in general refused to play along with literally any proposed formation of government until after the 1948 war. So one could argue they disenfranchised themselves.
(Not that the Israelis aren't dicks too.)
"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 Thexalon on Thursday July 27 2017, @03:45PM (1 child)
Most of the people involved in making decisions in 1948 are long dead. The rest are nearly dead. Why should their foolishness decide what happens now?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 27 2017, @04:05PM
I didn't say it should? I just pointed out that in the past people have made dumb decisions. You're the one trying to make it about what they are or should be doing now.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"