• 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
10,624
16,733
830
The government doesn't allow discrimination. Sorry.

You really are just trolling at this point. I just showed you that in fact that the courts are striking this bullshit down.


You are actively ignoring what my posts say lol Unbelievable.
 
Last edited:

ChuckeRearmed

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,031
1,807
415
I thought it is dream law for leftists if that it was about minorities and PC in general. But it is about Israel so it's bad. Wrong camp pals :messenger_grinning:
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
8,248
8,883
790
Except the article points out how its possible for American Citizens to be punished by the government for this.
Not supporting or do busiess with a other person/company because of their origin is called discrimination.

But question. If you think people should decide on their own how about people not wanting to serve gay or black people? Still ok?
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
As for op, giving the state the same ability of the people in choosing where they wish it purchase their goods is not censorship
If they choose that based on the constitutionally protected speech of those people, it kind of is.

They really do have a choice whether or not to fire people. No one is being forced to do anything.
They are being forced to sign a loyalty oath that violates their right to boycott.

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.
The US government is constitutionally limited here. You know, the whole Congress shall make no laws yada yada yada...

Just looks like a matter of "Freedom to boycott does not mean freedom of consequences of boycott."
Similar laws have been struck down as unconstitutional several times now. The US government can literally not impose consequences for exercising one’s right to free speech.

First of all this has nothing to do with first amendment at all. That is just ignorant muddying the waters or hyperbole. Stop that.
This has EVERYTHING to do with the first amendment, you moron. You’d have to be pretty fucking dense to think otherwise.

A boycott is not a punishment.
The Supreme Court and a few hundred years of US history disagree. This sort of thing has happened before, it was tested in the court of law every time, and EVERY TIME it was found to be unconstitutional.

You're right. Antisemitism is being disguised as a valid point of view and that needs to stop. Today.
The US government is expressly forbidden from being able to punish any speech, regardless of validity. It’s kind of the first thing in the Bill of Rights.

The government isn't fucking firing anyone you absolute sperg. Good lord.
The purpose of this bill is literally to allow them to fire people. It serves no other purpose.

Your actions speak louder than your words, antisemite..
That’s a very serious accusation against another poster. I hope your proof of this goes beyond disliking a bullsit, unconstitutional law, or else you’ve crossed a line.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,624
16,733
830
Not supporting or do busiess with a other person/company because of their origin is called discrimination.

Except thats not what is happening and you know it. You are being just as disingenuous as Duffy now.
 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,120
2,017
1,180
This is definitely unconstitutional. They're blatantly using political speech as a criteria.

This is about supporting America's interests in the Middle East, however it's obviously unconstitutional.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
8,248
8,883
790
Except thats not what is happening and you know it. You are being just as disingenuous as Duffy now.
Wait? People who deny service aka boycott companies because of their heritage is discrimination. How else would you call it?

Look I am not saying that I think it is cool that they punish people but this also should go for people doing the same stuff because they do not want to server gay people etc. Do you want to let the market decide or do you want no discrimination. You can also not boycott Service to people wearing a Maga Hat or are white.
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
10,008
26,688
1,265
There is a difference between the government telling companies what to do and the public boycotting a company.
Yes. The difference is identity.
It's only wrong when entity X does it.

This is the thing with morals and principles. They can't be applied selectively.
When you apply them selectively you're not actually demonstrating good morals or good principles. You're demonstrating double-standards and preference.

Watch out, Schrödinger's cat Schrödinger's cat doesn't like generalizations
There's a time and a place for them.
The support of disengenuous rhetoric is not the time nor the place.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
2,219
1,423
385
Milwaukee, WI
I hope your proof of this goes beyond disliking a bullsit, unconstitutional law, or else you’ve crossed a line.

What a bunch of bullshit. This same member has NO problem calling anyone and everyone who wears a hat a racist. But I can't point out their actions are obviously discriminatory in nature?

That's a typical liberal response.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,624
16,733
830
Because it's obvious. You don't want to hold aby other country accountable except for the Jews. Admit it.

I literally said in a post a little bit ago that I did you disingenuous troll. You are not even reading my posts at this point and its obvious. You are not even trying to follow this conversation. You are just coming in here to disagree with me, accuse me, and insult me.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,428
1,215
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.

How about a Judge explains it to you?

A federal judge on Wednesday let stand an Arkansas law requiring state contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel, ruling that such a boycott is not protected by the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Brian Miller dismissed the lawsuit the Arkansas Times had filed challenging the 2017 law. The newspaper had asked the judge to block the law, which requires contractors with the state to reduce their fees by 20 percent if they don't sign the pledge.

The Times' lawsuit said the University of Arkansas Pulaski Technical College refused to contract for advertising with the newspaper unless the Arkansas Times signed the pledge. The paper isn't engaged in a boycott against Israel.

Miller wrote that refusing to purchase items isn't protected speech. He noted that the Times wouldn't be barred from other protected forms of speech, including writing or picketing against Israel policies.

"It may even call upon others to boycott Israel, write in support of such boycotts, and engage in picketing and pamphleteering to that effect. This does not mean, however, that its decision to refuse to deal, or to refrain from purchasing certain goods, is protected by the First Amendment," Miller wrote.

Arkansas' law is similar to restrictions enacted in other states that have been challenged. The measures are aimed at a movement protesting Israel's policies toward Palestinians. A federal judge in September blocked Arizona from enforcing a similar measure. A federal judge also blocked Kansas from enforcing its anti-boycott measure, but lawmakers rewrote the measure so that it no longer applied to individuals and nonprofits and only applied to state contracts worth $100,000 or more. Arkansas' law applies to contracts worth $1,000 or more.

BDS is antisemetic, anti-Israel and doesn't work. If you want to boycott on your own personal time then nothing is stopping you. If you want to do business with Government then you can't suppport an antisemetic movement, go cry me a river.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
8,248
8,883
790
I literally said in a post a little bit ago that I did you disingenuous troll. You are not even reading my posts at this point and its obvious. You are not even trying to follow this conversation. You are just coming in here to disagree with me, accuse me, and insult me.
You have not told people while you believe that this is no discimination at all. You are jsut saying it is not discrimination

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

prejudical treatment? check
different categories of people? check
race/origin? check

So how is it not discrimination. Please explain this to me.

Also yes BDS are highly antisemitic. It is not even funny to defend these organizations
 
Last edited:

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,624
16,733
830
How about a Judge explains it to you?



BDS is antisemetic, anti-Israel and doesn't work. If you want to boycott on your own personal time then nothing is stopping you. If you want to do business with Government then you can't suppport an antisemetic movement, go cry me a river.

Yeah and 2 other federal judges have disagreed already. You would know that if you read my posts. This is an issue that is destined for the Supreme Court.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,624
16,733
830
You have not told people while you believe that this is no discimination at all. You are jsut saying it is not discrimination

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

prejudical treatment? check
different categories of people? check
race/origin? check

So how is it not discrimination. Please explain this to me.

Disagreeing with the actions of a government does not mean you hate the people that they are governing. I already pointed that out in a previous post when I said that just because I disagree with the way North Korea operates doesn't mean I hate North Koreans.


Israel has committed numerous human rights violations in recent times. Boycotting them based on that is not fucking antisemitism. No more than disagreeing with North Korea's human rights violations is being Anti-Korean. Or disagreeing with Russia's government is Anti-Russian.



Hell I disagree with the government of the United States under the Trump administration on most issues and their human rights violations. Does that mean I hate all Americans? Of fucking course it doesn't.



How the hell are you people not getting this extremely simple concept?
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
2,219
1,423
385
Milwaukee, WI
One only has to look to the founders of this movement to see its true intentions.

Prominent BDS leaders such as Omar Barghouti and Hatem Bazian have called for “armed resistance” against Jews in both the United States and Israel. Bazian has even suggested that Jews control academia and stated that Jews “kill, rape, smuggle organs and steal the land of Palestinians.” These statements echo classic antisemitic tropes, including the slanders that Jews drink the blood of non-Jews and Jews are conspiring to take over the world.
 
Jun 26, 2018
2,219
1,423
385
Milwaukee, WI
Disagreeing with the actions of a government does not mean you hate the people that they are governing

But you are trying to hurt thr people of Israel by taking away jobs and opportunities. That's the sick part of all this. Many Palestinians lost their jobs because you wanted to attack SodaStream. How can you say you aren't at odds with the citizens who are trying to work?
 

Cybrwzrd

Banned
Sep 29, 2014
8,057
14,862
1,020
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?

How is it an attack on freedom of speech to mandate that the government only uses contractors that don't boycott our allies?
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,624
16,733
830
How is it an attack on freedom of speech to mandate that the government only uses contractors that don't boycott our allies?

You were one of the ones on here that I was sure beyond all doubt that would be against this because you are usually so level headed and rational. I am honestly shocked to see thats not the case here.
 
Last edited:

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,624
16,733
830
Because it's disingenuous. You are literally trying to make it impossible for Israelis to work and prosper in their own country.

The only thing disingenuous here is you and your constant stream of bullshit and I am done entertaining it. Between your insults, your intentional ignoring of my posts, and your baseless accusations you have made it clear you have no interest in a real discussion here.

Continue to yell at the clouds though if it makes you feel better.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
8,248
8,883
790
Disagreeing with the actions of a government does not mean you hate the people that they are governing. I already pointed that out in a previous post when I said that just because I disagree with the way North Korea operates doesn't mean I hate North Koreans.


Israel has committed numerous human rights violations in recent times. Boycotting them based on that is not fucking antisemitism. No more than disagreeing with North Korea's human rights violations is being Anti-Korean. Or disagreeing with Russia's government is Anti-Russian.



Hell I disagree with the government of the United States under the Trump administration on most issues and their human rights violations. Does that mean I hate all Americans? Of fucking course it doesn't.



How the hell are you people not getting this extremely simple concept?
IT says that they are boycotting Business with israelian companies not with the government boycott the government as much as you want but to Do this with compsnies in Israel because of IT is still discrimination
 
Last edited:

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
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?
Personally I don't understand it myself but when you deal with stuff like this...
No country is perfect. But don't pretend to be objective in your hatred of Israel. You hate that country.
...it seems pretty clear that that's how the situation works.

I just feel it's important to point out how approaching this issue in that manner chokes out discourse. I don't hate any country, but I do dislike how predictably such conversations are derailed in ways that are often hard to differentiate from parody.
 

Cybrwzrd

Banned
Sep 29, 2014
8,057
14,862
1,020
You were one of the ones on here that I was sure beyond all doubt that would be against this because you are usually so level headed and rational. I am honestly shocked to see thats not the case here.

I just don't see the issue on how this infringes on free speech. Would you support a government ban on purchases from companies that support white supremacy? If you say yes, then you are a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
2,219
1,423
385
Milwaukee, WI
Continue to yell at the clouds though if it makes you feel better.

Liberals are cozying up to antisemitists and it is becoming increasingly alarming. Just look at the women's march debacle. And then when pressed on why they are at war with Jews in Israel, they literally fold like a paper bag in the wind.

Sad, really.

Take your hatred elsewhere, Nobody_Important. We don't play that here.
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
What a bunch of bullshit. This same member has NO problem calling anyone and everyone who wears a hat a racist. But I can't point out their actions are obviously discriminatory in nature?
I believe I've called him out on that behavior is well. It doesn't matter where you stand on matters, calling other posters racist or antisemites is not appropriate nor helpful.

Discrimination isn't free speech.
Actually, I think you'll find that it is. Anti-discrimination laws are limited to a very few select places (hiring practices, for example), but beyond that, it's absolutely protected speech. It's why neo-nazis can walk through cities with tiki torches chanting obscene things. I feel like we just had this exact conversation and the exact same defenses are coming up, despite being proven to be worthless the last four or five times. Is this where the NPC meme comes from?

You'll also have to explain something to me. This law punished boycott of the country of Israel - a country is a political body, not a race. If this law were about discrimination, it would specifically protect Jews, but it doesn't. It protect Israel. I can think of many reasons why someone who has no issues at all with the Jewish faith or race might take issue with Israel's politics and decisions on the world stage (and their power and influence of the US), so how specifically does this law target discrimination?

For instance, the US is giving $38 billion to Israel over the next 10 years. Someone did the math and that comes out to something like $30k per Israeli citizen, per year. That kind of money could make a huge difference to rebuilding our crumbling transportation infrastructure, increase our security against outside threat, support the healthcare needs of an aging populace, or supporting the arts and sciences - and near as I can tell, we are giving this money to Israel with no strings attached. We're just giving it to them. For free.

Now, if I had a problem with that, is that antisemetism? And if I said so someplace public like Twitter, Facebook, or even here, do you think the government should not do business with me as a way to financially punish me for my speech?
 
Feb 23, 2016
370
72
230
So i can boycott an american company but i cant boycott an ISRAELI company and you guys cant see anything wrong with that ? nah just whine about alex jones getting removed because that the same as the The Government passing a law .
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
You can try to articulate a coherent argument. Just saying.
Given the thing I quoted? Yeah I could but it sounds like an obscene waste of time. Instead I'ma go do some biking and maybe guitar a bit.

At any rate I'm not smart enough to know what's right and wrong when it comes to such large scale affairs. I just dislike the hyperbole when it comes to such a serious subject, the fact that it is so common makes discussion nigh impossible.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,120
2,017
1,180
If you tried to boycott companies where the majority of employees were Muslim, that would be discrimination.

Now swap Muslim for Jews.

The makeup of the employees is irrelevant, it's about the position of the company itself.
 
Feb 23, 2016
370
72
230
If you tried to boycott companies where the majority of employees were Muslim, that would be discrimination.

Now swap Muslim for Jews.


people boycott Saudi Arabia no problem i dont see the US passing laws banning us from boycotting other allies ? if they were worried about jews why doesnt the law specificity jew or do Jewish company's only exist in israle of course you wouldn't think that far ahead probably some some nut waiting for rapture
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,624
16,733
830
I just don't see the issue on how this infringes on free speech. Would you support a government ban on purchases from companies that support white supremacy? If you say yes, then you are a hypocrite.

Would I support the GOVERNMENT ban on such a thing? Ask me that 6 months ago and I would have said yes. But now? No. I have come to realize in recent months that while morally right it would still be wrong by the letter of the law in the end. Would I support a PUBLIC boycott on such a thing? Absolutely.



The difference is the fact that the 1st amendment is specifically worded to prevent the government from punishing people from exercising free speech or freedom of expression. No matter who its against. As I have stated already this is the government giving itself the power to discriminate against companies who boycott things they don't like. Thats not a good thing now and it will lead to nothing good later. You bring up the word "allies" but that is irrelevant. The government can change allegiances anytime it wants. It could declare anyone the enemy or an ally and companies would be forced to comply if they wanted to continue to work with the government.


Public companies should be able to operate free of government threats or sanctions if they choose to not do business with someone. Its one thing if the public says a boycott is good or bad, but its not for the government to decide that and punish accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
I just don't see the issue on how this infringes on free speech. Would you support a government ban on purchases from companies that support white supremacy? If you say yes, then you are a hypocrite.
Here's the first amendment in it's entirety:

"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"

Basically, you've got two classes of laws here. There's laws the outright ban speech, which is unconstitutionally explicit. Then you've got laws which punish speech without banning it. Repeatedly, the Supreme Court has examined this issue and they've decided that punishing speech falls under the "abridging the freedom of speech". Basically, the government can not put restrictions on speech, nor create punitive situations which would affect what speech is appropriate, and in the very, very few places where restrictions are necessary (incitement, fighting words doctrine), these restrictions must necessarily be applied in the narrowest, most limited form imaginable. Anything more than that is government overreach.

It's also been found that compelled speech - that is, the government forcing someone to say or act in a way they don't want to - is unconstitutional as fuck. Loyalty oaths like this are compelled speech (that's bad) which punishes people for their speech (also bad). There's literally nothing constitutional about this law and it will certainly be overturned - but it could take years and may have to go all the way up to the Supreme Court, and in that time, the purpose of the law (which is to punish citizens for wrong think) will have done a lot of damage.

And for the record, I would not support a government ban on purchases from companies that support white supremacy either. I consider the protection of our right to free speech to be the single most important law of governance in the history of mankind, and I support it unconditionally.
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
If you tried to boycott companies where the majority of employees were Muslim, that would be discrimination.

Now swap Muslim for Jews.
What if I boycott a company because of something that has nothing to do with their racial makeup, but their racial makeup just happened to be majority Muslim?
 

Cybrwzrd

Banned
Sep 29, 2014
8,057
14,862
1,020
For instance, the US is giving $38 billion to Israel over the next 10 years. Someone did the math and that comes out to something like $30k per Israeli citizen, per year. That kind of money could make a huge difference to rebuilding our crumbling transportation infrastructure, increase our security against outside threat, support the healthcare needs of an aging populace, or supporting the arts and sciences - and near as I can tell, we are giving this money to Israel with no strings attached. We're just giving it to them. For free.

I think this is appalling by the way. I have no love of Israel. Putting a hen house in the middle of a wolves den and giving the hens lots of weapons to protect themselves from the wolves is a dumb idea.


It could declare anyone the enemy or an ally and companies would be forced to comply if they wanted to continue to work with the government.

Yes, they are forced to comply. If you do business with an enemy state it can be considered treason.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,120
2,017
1,180
It does matter. And what position did SodaStream have that caused it to be boycotted? Be honest.

It employed Jews in Israel. That was the crime.

No one knows the politics of an individual employee, so you can't make a decision on them.

Sodasteam was a boycott against the government. The employees don't matter.

The BDS movement sees SodaStream’s closure of its factory in the militarily occupied West Bank as a success, in line with our commitment to end Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights. This SodaStream factory was located in one of the largest illegal Israeli settlements built on stolen Palestinian land, on the ruins of seven Palestinian villages whose inhabitants were forced out to make way for a Jewish-only town, in contravention of international law and decades of stated US policy.

As was the case with the international boycott of and divestment from corporations complicit in the crimes of apartheid South Africa, all corporations that are complicit in Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights are legitimate targets for the BDS movement.

At the height of the BDS campaign against SodaStream, the company’s share price tumbled and its reputation was damaged.

It’s clear that violating the Palestinian BDS call is morally objectionable because it’s bad for human rights. It’s also bad for business.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
2,219
1,423
385
Milwaukee, WI
What if I boycott a company because of something that has nothing to do with their racial makeup, but their racial makeup just happened to be majority Muslim?

You had better be able to explain what that grievance is. And how you apply it to others. Not just Muslims. BDS can't do that. Because ot was started by a bunch of hateful bigots.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,624
16,733
830
Yes, they are forced to comply. If you do business with an enemy state it can be considered treason.

Thats not what we are talking about here and its not the same thing. I know you know that.
 
Last edited: