• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

An ACTUAL attack on Free Speech is currently underway by the US Government

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
U.S. SENATE’S FIRST BILL, IN THE MIDST OF THE SHUTDOWN, IS A BIPARTISAN DEFENSE OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT FROM BOYCOTTS

Congress is gaveled into session, the chambers attach symbolic importance to the first piece of legislation to be considered. For that reason, it bears the lofty designation of H.R.1 in the House and S.1 in the Senate.

In the newly controlled Democratic House, H.R.1 — meant to signal the new majority’s priorities — is an anti-corruption bill that combines election and campaign finance reform, strengthening of voting rights, and matching public funds for small-dollar candidates. In the 2017 Senate, the GOP-controlled S.1 was a bill, called the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” that, among other provisions, cut various forms of corporate taxes.

But in the 2019 GOP-controlled Senate, the first bill to be considered — S.1 — is not designed to protect American workers, bolster U.S. companies, or address the various debates over border security and immigration. It’s not a bill to open the government. Instead, according to multiple sources involved in the legislative process, S.1 will be a compendium containing a handful of foreign policy-related measures, the main one of which is a provision — with Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as a lead sponsor — to defend the Israeli government. The bill is a top legislative priority for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel. As The Intercept reported last month, 26 states now have enacted some version of a law to punish or otherwise sanction entities that participate in or support the boycott of Israel, while similar laws are pending in at least 13 additional states. Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen the legal basis to defend those Israel-protecting laws from constitutional challenge.

Punishment aimed at companies that choose to boycott Israel can also sweep up individual American citizens in its punitive net because individual contractors often work for state or local governments under the auspices of a sole proprietorship or some other business entity. That was the case with Texas elementary school speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her job working with autistic and speech-impaired children in Austin because she refused to promise not to boycott goods produced in Israel and/or illegal Israeli settlements.

Thus far, the two federal courts that have ruled on such bills have declared them to be unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment speech rights of American citizens. “A restriction of one’s ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in such a boycott,” U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa of Arizona wrote in her decision issuing a preliminary injunction against the law in a case brought last September by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of “an attorney who has contracted with the state for the last 12 years to provide legal services on behalf of incarcerated individuals,” but lost his contract to do so after he refused to sign an oath pledging not to boycott Israel.

A similar ruling was issued in January of last year by a Kansas federal judge, who ruled that state’s Israel oath law unconstitutional on the ground that “the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott like the one punished by the Kansas law.” In that case, a Mennonite who was a longtime public school teacher lost her independent contract as a school curriculum developer after she followed her church’s decision to boycott goods from Israeli companies in the occupied West Bank and thus, refused to sign the oath required by Kansas law.

These are the Israel-defending, free speech-punishing laws that Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen. Although Rubio is the chief sponsor, his bill attracted broad bipartisan support, as is true of most bills designed to protect Israel and supported by AIPAC. Rubio’s bill last Congress was co-sponsored by several Democrats who are still in the Senate: Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

The support among Democrats for bills that would punish supporters of the Boycott Israel movement is now particularly awkward given that two of the most prominent newly elected Democratic members — Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, the first two Muslim women in Congress — are both supporters of that Israel boycott.

Last year, Cardin introduced a bill that would have criminalized participation in international boycotts of Israel, and it was on the verge of passing with significant bipartisan support until the ACLU sounded the alarm on how gravely unconstitutional that bill was. Once The Intercept reported on the mechanics of the bill and the covert effort to enact it with little attention, numerous Democratic senators announced that they were reconsidering their support, stalling the bill’s enactment. Though Cardin attempted to pass a watered-down version in the lame-duck session, it is now Rubio’s Israel-defending bill that has taken center stage even as the U.S. government is in the midst of a shutdown for American citizens.


More details here.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05...ense-of-the-israeli-government-from-boycotts/



This should be of concern to everyone in the country regardless of political affiliation.
 
Last edited:

hargwood

Banned
Aug 17, 2018
259
283
190
Not even hiding the fact that the USA is Israel's bitch anymore.

Just as an aside, Mossad (with help from a CIA mole) killed JFK (the last chance of freedom) over the Dimona nuclear facility. Israel have owned the USA's foreign policy ever since.
 

Corderlain

Banned
Jun 12, 2018
867
974
345
Not even hiding the fact that the USA is Israel's bitch anymore.

Just as an aside, Mossad (with help from a CIA mole) killed JFK (the last chance of freedom) over the Dimona nuclear facility. Israel have owned the USA's foreign policy ever since.

Are you insane?

As for op, giving the state the same ability of the people in choosing where they wish it purchase their goods is not censorship. Boycotting is something everyone is allowed to do.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
Are you insane?

As for op, giving the state the same ability of the people in choosing where they wish it purchase their goods is not censorship. Boycotting is something everyone is allowed to do.

Except the article points out how its possible for American Citizens to be punished by the government for this.


Punishment aimed at companies that choose to boycott Israel can also sweep up individual American citizens in its punitive net because individual contractors often work for state or local governments under the auspices of a sole proprietorship or some other business entity. That was the case with Texas elementary school speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her job working with autistic and speech-impaired children in Austin because she refused to promise not to boycott goods produced in Israel and/or illegal Israeli settlements.


The government trying to tell companies and by extension their owners/employees who they can and can't boycott seems like it should be of concern to everyone.
 
Last edited:

Corderlain

Banned
Jun 12, 2018
867
974
345
I highly doubt the big G government made the decision to fire those people. If your local school admin fires you for it that's the consequence of your decision to boycott.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
I highly doubt the big G government made the decision to fire those people. If your local school admin fires you for it that's the consequence of your decision to boycott.

Except the article clearly states

In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel. As The Intercept reported last month, 26 states now have enacted some version of a law to punish or otherwise sanction entities that participate in or support the boycott of Israel, while similar laws are pending in at least 13 additional states. Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen the legal basis to defend those Israel-protecting laws from constitutional challenge.


So by extension they are leading to the firing of these people by holding the threat of boycotts or sanctions over those companies who do not do what they say. So the companies have no choice but to fire these people.
 
Last edited:

Corderlain

Banned
Jun 12, 2018
867
974
345
They really do have a choice whether or not to fire people. No one is being forced to do anything.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
They really do have a choice whether or not to fire people. No one is being forced to do anything.


What part of...

"gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel."

...are you not getting here?


That is the government giving itself the power to punish publicly/privately owned companies and by extension their employees for exercising their right to free speech/expression. All because they are choosing to boycott something the Government doesn't want them to boycott.



You don't see any issue with that? None at all? Are you fucking kidding me?
 

Corderlain

Banned
Jun 12, 2018
867
974
345
The government is giving itself the ability to pick and choose where they spend their money just like a citizen can. Yes I see no issue with this.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
The government is giving itself the ability to pick and choose where they spend their money just like a citizen can. Yes I see no issue with this.

Are you being intentionally dense? They are making that decision based on whether or not a company is using its ability to choose who it does business with and by threatening to withhold money they are bullying these companies into doing what they want.


This is the government openly attacking freedom of speech and expression at the corporate level. The entire point of the First Amendment is to prevent the Government of punishing people for their Free Speech and Companies are considered people last time I checked.
 
Last edited:

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
3,430
578
665
These laws are kind of outdated, there was a time any company that wanted to do any business in the Arab world had to boycott Israel. These days the Arab boycott is pretty much dead.

But it's a useful filter to keep out radical muslims who balk at the idea of buying anything made by jews.
 

Cato

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,405
8,477
755
Are you being intentionally dense? They are making that decision based on whether or not a company is using its ability to choose who it does business with and by threatening to withhold money they are bullying these companies into doing what they want.


This is the government openly attacking freedom of speech and expression at the corporate level. The entire point of the First Amendment is to prevent the Government of punishing people for their Free Speech and Companies are considered people.

Just looks like a matter of "Freedom to boycott does not mean freedom of consequences of boycott."
That is how you say it?
 

Corderlain

Banned
Jun 12, 2018
867
974
345
Are you being intentionally dense? They are making that decision based on whether or not a company is using its ability to choose who it does business with and by threatening to withhold money they are bullying these companies into doing what they want.


This is the government openly attacking freedom of speech and expression at the corporate level. The entire point of the First Amendment is to prevent the Government of punishing people for their Free Speech and Companies are considered people last time I checked.

It's really not.

Just looks like a matter of "Freedom to boycott does not mean freedom of consequences of boycott."
That is how you say it?

That's exactly what it is.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
Just looks like a matter of "Freedom to boycott does not mean freedom of consequences of boycott."
That is how you say it?

Are you people for-fucking-real right now?


I have seen endless posts on here from people whining and bitching about "Freedom of Speech" and how the "First Amendment is under attack" when someone like Alex Jones loses his platform for spreading hate and lies or when some random dude on YouTube gets banned, but here we have an ACTUAL attack on the First Amendment by the Government and you wanna be snarky?


Really? You are that petty?
 
Last edited:

Cato

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,405
8,477
755
Are you people for-fucking-real right now?


I have seen endless posts on here from people whining and bitching about "Freedom of Speech" and how the "First Amendment is under attack" when someone like Alex Jones loses his platform for spreading hate and lies or when some random dude on YouTube gets banned, but here we have an ACTUAL attack on the First Amendment by the Government and you wanna be snarky?


Really? You are that petty?

Calm down dude. You sound like it is the end of the world.
First of all this has nothing to do with first amendment at all. That is just ignorant muddying the waters or hyperbole. Stop that.

I just make fun of the fact that it is YOU that suddenly is super upset that folks/companies can not discriminate against someone without consequences.
Lets play a silly game. Assume the bill instead of being about israel and jews was about syria and muslims. You would react how to it?
I.e. your racial/religious bias is showing and I am pointing it out.

Anyway, the hysteria almost makes it sounds like this was something Trump personally forced through while it was actually a bi-partisan bill by both republicans and democrats.
If you want to change this you should write letters to your congress men and senators and get them to change this law. You are a democrat? so you should perhaps
contact your democrat representative and tell them they need to change their vote or repeal this law.

Being angry guy on the internet does not bring change.
 
Last edited:

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
Calm down dude. You sound like it is the end of the world.
First of all this has nothing to do with first amendment at all. That is just ignorant muddying the waters or hyperbole. Stop that.

Explain to me how the US Government giving itself the power to punish companies and their employees who boycott something they don't like is not an attack on free speech. Especially when so many people on here cry tears of blood when someone like Alex Jones is banned from YouTube and call that an attack on Free Speech.


And yet somehow this isn't? Explain.
 
Last edited:

Cato

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,405
8,477
755
I would call the Government threatening a company with loss of profits and employees being fired a hell of a punishment.

Maybe it is for the best.
If it is so important for a company that they will rather go under than not discriminate against jews/israel then maybe that is for the best.

That company can be replaced by new company that is not anti-semitic or racist. Capitalism will solve the problem and the people that lost their jobs can apply for a job in the new company.
Just see it as the anti-semitic company got de-platformed.


I really don't understand why you are so angry and why you are so adamant that companies should be allowed to discriminate against a certain demographic/religion and that there must not be any consequences for this.

Is it really so important to you that discrimination against jews must not have negative consequences? I think that is not a good optics if you get what I mean.


If you are so angry. Talk to your democrat representative and tell them they must change their minds.
 
Last edited:

Cato

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,405
8,477
755
Explain to me how the US Government giving itself the power to punish companies and their employees who boycott something they don't like is not an attack on free speech. Especially when so many people on here cry tears of blood when someone like Alex Jones is banned from YouTube and call that an attack on Free Speech.


And yet somehow this isn't? Explain.

And you celebrate when Alex Jones get deplatformed and you cry blood when anti-semites get deplatformed. Hypocricy?

There is a lot of things that you will be punished for if you Boycott.
For example, if you boycott any interactions with IRS you will be punished too.

Do you see how silly your argument is?
Do you say that if people are punished for not reporting their earnings then that is an attack on free speech too?


I think you push an anti-semitic message here and clouds your reasoning.
 
Last edited:

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
I can't believe after everything I have seen on here from people complaining about "freedom of speech" I am seeing people who are actually defending this garbage. And using "antisemitism" as an excuse no less.


I guess I will just have to be happy that the courts do not agree with you.

This whole BDS reeks of antisemitism. I'm glad we are standing up to this kind of hatred. Israel has every legal right to exist. Just stop.

Yeah couldn't be related to the various human right violations they have committed in recent years. No sir. Its all because of "antisemitism"
 
Last edited:

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
Wow I agree with NI on something, I feel sort of dirty.

Also calling anyone who doesn't agree with any action made by anyone of the Jewish faith antisemitic makes discussion impossible. Unless your goal is expressly to avoid discussion (in which case why are you here?) it's worse than useless to add that to the conversation.

Granted, if that is your goal... well... I suppose there is a reason it is so common.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,903
4,869
1,905
Does anyone know what the oath entails? ( I can't even believe there is an oath they have to sign)

Is it disallowing participation of the the boycott specifically when acting as an employee of a school or government? Or is this also affecting what a private citizen can do in their private life?

The failed Cardin bill would have done the latter, which is obviously unconstitutional.
You're right. Antisemitism is being disguised as a valid point of view and that needs to stop. Today.
Nope. It isn't.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
Wow I agree with NI on something, I feel sort of dirty.

Also calling anyone who doesn't agree with any action made by anyone of the Jewish faith antisemitic makes discussion impossible. Unless your goal is expressly to avoid discussion (in which case why are you here?) it's worse than useless to add that to the conversation.

Granted, if that is your goal... well... I suppose there is a reason it is so common.
Does anyone know what the oath entails? ( I can't even believe there is an oath they have to sign)

Is it disallowing participation of the the boycott specifically when acting as an employee of a school or government? Or is this also affecting what a private citizen can do in their private life?

The failed Cardin bill would have done the latter, which is obviously unconstitutional.

Nope. It isn't.

Thank god. Some people who actually agree with me. Not even kidding I thought this would be the first thread in recent months where all of us could come together and say "Yeah no this is not okay" regardless of "which side" we are on or whatever petty and immature grudges we have against each other.



I feel like a fool for even entertaining the thought.
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
10,008
26,688
1,265
I would call the Government threatening a company with loss of profits and employees being fired a hell of a punishment.
You took unrepentant glee in a company's performance being affected as a result of identity-politics-driven boycotting though. Doubling down on your stance when the site owner pointed out your immorality.
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
I feel like a fool for even entertaining the thought.
When most see the choices as "everything that is done in regards to Israel is correct" and "you are an antisemite" I'm... less than surprised.

It is wonderful to see how effective a strategy it has been for shutting down discourse, however.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
You took unrepentant glee in a company's performance being affected as a result of identity-politics-driven boycotting though. Doubling down on your stance when the site owner pointed out your immorality.

There is a difference between the government telling companies what to do and the public boycotting a company. One is the government impeding on freedom of expression and the other is American Citizens using that freedom of expression.



In fact its the entire point of the 1st amendment.

When most see the choices as "everything that is done in regards to Israel is correct" and "you are an antisemite" I'm... less than surprised.

It is wonderful to see how effective a strategy it has been for shutting down discourse, however.

I have never even understood that line of thinking. Because you disagree with the way Israel does things that makes you an "Antisemite"?


I disagree with the way North Korea does things. Does that mean I hate Koreans?
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
2,219
1,423
385
Milwaukee, WI
Yeah couldn't be related to the various human right violations they have committed in recent years. No sir all because of "antisemitism"

Iran, amongst other countries, has had a number of human rights violations also. But instead of BDS for Iran, people like you defended giving them $400b and nuclear technology. Of course this is antisemitism.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
Iran, amongst other countries, has had a number of human rights violations also. But instead of BDS for Iran, people like you defended giving them $400b and nuclear technology. Of course this is antisemitism.

When did I defend that?


Quote me. I'll wait.
 
Last edited:

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
N. Korea isn't exactly our Democratic ally. Israel is and you treat them like an enemy. Because they are Jews. No other reason.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.


That is the most disingenuous garbage I have ever seen from you and that is saying quite alot.
 
Last edited:

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,903
4,869
1,905

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
Please. Liberals went to bat for Iran but shit on Israel every chance they get. What a joke.

Oh so you are talking out of your ass and just assuming I supported that action with no proof whatsoever to back it up.


I figured as much.

Your actions speak louder than your words, antisemite..

No this is baseless disingenuous bullshit. You are accusing me of being an antisemite simply because I disagree with what Israel has done. Thats not how that works. Its possible to disagree with something a country does without hating the people who inhabit it. I have already shown that.


You are being intentionally obtuse for no other reason than to troll at this point.
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,738
19,795
705
When did I defend that?


Quote me. I'll wait.
He didn't say you did.

He accurately pointed out that people like you, people who cry about Israel, are noticeably quiet about other countries who do much worse.

Oh and you pushing this anti semitic meme about Jews and loyalty isn't helping
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
2,219
1,423
385
Milwaukee, WI
Its possible to disagree with something a country does without hating the people who inhabit it.

But you're not attacking the government decisions. Think about it. You're trying to attack and have an effect on the regular citizens and their ability to out food on the table. You're deliberately going after businesses to harm the citizens. Why? So they won't live there anymore. It's antisemitism at its worst. Disguised as diplomacy. Disgusting.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
He didn't say you did.

He accurately pointed out that people like you, people who cry about Israel, are noticeably quiet about other countries who do much worse.

Name some countries and let me denounce the actions of their governments too then. That way we can clear up this made up bias you seem to think I have. North Korea, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, The United States, etc etc.


Lets go.
 
Last edited:

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,796
16,991
830
Ukraine and Turkey. Where are the calls to BDS?

If companies wanna boycott them then go right ahead. If they believe that its in their best interests morally or financially to do so then they can go right ahead. Thats not the part I care about.


The part I care about is the part where the Government giving itself the power to tell people who they can and can't boycott or else the Government will punish them by withholding contracts and funding for doing so. Once again the entire point of the 1st amendment is to prevent the government from punishing people for using their freedom of speech.


And regardless of what you say the courts agree.


A new wave of state laws that try to limit Americans’ constitutional right to engage in political boycotts is now 0 for 2 in federal court.

On Thursday night, a federal court blocked Arizona from enforcing a law requiring state contractors to certify that they are not participating in boycotts of Israel. The court agreed with the ACLU that the law likely violates contractors’ free speech rights under the First Amendment.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-spee...ws-targeting-israel-boycotts-fail-again-court
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,738
19,795
705
Name some countries and let me denounce the actions of their governments too then. That way we can clear up this made up bias you seem to think I have. North Korea, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, The United States, etc etc.


Lets go.
Sigh

You just don't get it. Me giving you a list would mean nothing. Their is not a BDS for Iran or Venezuela or even Saudi Arabia. Their is one, a powerful one, against one group of people.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,903
4,869
1,905
Sigh

You just don't get it. Me giving you a list would mean nothing. Their is not a BDS for Iran or Venezuela or even Saudi Arabia. Their is one, a powerful one, against one group of people.
Powerful is an outright lie lol.

Also you might have some credence on "one group of people" if this targetted Non-Israeli jews, but it doesn't because the focus of the boycott isn't anti-semitism.