This will go down in flames.
Amendment I
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.
Yeah trump and maga have been wiping their ass with that document for a while. I don’t think it’s a thing anymore
Because republicans care so much about laws they don’t agree with.
Or parts of the religions they thump on about.
And the USSC has definitely ruled that money is equivalent to speech. So boycott activity is logically covered under this Amendment.
If this law passes, a lot of people are going to have a rough year or two until they can get a case all the way to the Supreme Court.
How tf can u ban a boycott, how is that even possible let alone provable 🤦 Politics aside if I js don’t like a brand that endorses or has ties to Israel would I then be subject to charges. How u trynna force people to buy from certain companies, what if I was bruk, would I be breaking the law? 🤡
it will probably use to target protestors, and groups criticial of israel.
This will probably be used to target protestors and organizers of political movements.
Yeah, the boycott itself can’t reasonably be prosecuted. But it can be used to suppress discussion (e.g. organization, coordination) of said boycott.
Excuse me I saw you drinking flat water where is your soda stream ice this one get this one
If you make the 1st Amendment illegal, the rest of the Constitution cannot be far behind.
if? people have already been blackbagged for their speech. this is just encoding something already in effect.
Is that legal? It doesn’t sound legal. I’m sure they could make it illegal for US government agencies to boycott Israel because that’s at least partially a foreign policy decision, but private businesses? What are they gonna do, force you to buy Israeli goods?
narrator: it didn’t sound legal because it wasn’t.
Incremental steps into the police state.
We are in a police state. This is more.
How tf do you ban boycotts? What if I just don’t want to consoom all the time?
Sorry, we checked your recent bank transactions and you haven’t spent enough money at [Insert Corporation]. Please pay the $100 fine or serve one day at [Insert Corporation] as a free laborer.
Probably that is a threat for anyone spreading boycott movement in social media. So if you post McDonald are shit, bad for the health and do not consume them, you are ok. If you post don’t go to McDonald because they support a genocide by Israel, then it is another story.
And so the fear begins. Its a first step.
Hopefully someone makes a list of brands and companies that you aren’t allowed to boycot according to usa republicans and then publishes that list online on a user friendly website. After all, without that information, people might be unknowingly breaking the law when they start a personal boycot.
Genius. Unfortunately, they will most likely target anti-genocide activist, check their phone for any BDS material and charge them with this.
It is not for the masses it is for the vocal once.
this, i just deleted my BDS apps, will have to rely on manually checking things with a vpn.
Wait you first blame us for not having free speach, because lying about the holocaust is illegal and now you ban boycotting Israel for engaging in a de facto genocide?
Well, we now know what death cult is behind the misery of literally the entire world.
Irony: Nazis are teaching the rest of us who hate Nazis how to hate the Jews
Screaming Nazi at everyone who calls you out, won’t work forever. You are DONE.
Hey big shoutout to all the Redditors and Lemmy guys who told me that we can have no restrictions on free speech because if we restrict Nazis they will restrict us if they ever gain power.
Welp, here ya go…like I told you…and many of you blocked and/or banned me for saying it. Ironic.
The bill got pulled. And even if it didn’t it’s such a blatant and egregious violation of 1A that even Trump’s pet judges would have to shoot it down out of fear of the precedent it would set and what would happen if ever they lose power for any length of time.
That’s the conversation I’ve been having with some people cheering on Trump’s immigration moves. I’ve pointed out the machine the individual bricks seems to be building, and when they support that too because Trump will only use it on the “right sort of people” I point out that Trump won’t be in power forever, and ask him what he’d think if someone like Harris or AOC had that same power. That’s when they suddenly get it, because the idea that the same machinery could be brought against them is not something they consider.
The first question you should ask when considering “Should the government have this power?” is “If the people I oppose the very most had this power, what would they do with it?” If you’re not OK with the answer to that, then the government shouldn’t have that power.
5 bucks says the people who told you that were, in fact, nazis
Hard to say. They mostly seemed like college liberals still living at home
been my experience that that people saying “We have to protect the nazis” are either nazis, or nazis pretending to be their idea of librul to infiltrate,
I have a relevant cartoon that I cant post for some reason…will try again…
[(https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c4568c91-00a0-4bb2-b67e-f32dce46183b.jpeg)]
You’ll never easily get through to those people. They hold idealism over material reality in many cases.
The best way I’ve found to get even some of them to at least stop and think for a minute is to ask if preventing people from doing things like:
- Screaming slurs next to a preschool
- Publishing deliberately false information to ruin someone’s reputation
- Doxxing someone who was mean to you
…is justified. If they say yes, then maybe unlimited free speech isn’t perfect, and restricting Nazis could be justified. If they say no, then you’ll know they’re a lost cause.
Is the problem the speech or the people tbat speak it?
Great question. Intention matters, so many countries focus on speech that can only be malicious, like incitement to violence in the UK or Nazi salutes in Germany.
People ready and willing to spread violent, harmful hate can be dealt with via the laws they violate. Assult, battey, stalking, theft, etc.
The subtle side is, as always, if your speech cannot persuade the (large) majority that the opposition speech is wrong, then to dismiss the opposition is to become the oppressing minority.
i felt like the trolls on reddits are just RU stoking anger and division.
Law is summarized as:
Prohibited actions include (1) refusing to do business with companies organized under the laws of the boycotted country, if the refusal is pursuant to an agreement with or request from the country or IGO imposing the boycott; (2) refusing to employ any U.S. person on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin; and (3) furnishing information about whether someone is associated with charitable or fraternal organizations that support the boycotted country.
So it seems like if you decide not to buy a shirt made in Israel because the EU suggests a boycott, you go to jail and/or get fined. Clear violation of the 1st ammendment.
Practically, how do you prosecute someone for not voluntarily consuming a good or service?
I’m guessing you can’t but this might be aimed at businesses where there could be memos maybe?
It’s for harassment. Even shit lawsuits cost serious money to defend. Yeah, it’s unwinnable, but but the company defending might choose to not publicly side with a boycott or engage in one, which is the goal of these apocalypse seeking lunatics.
Also, lawyers don’t take civil rights cases anymore since the Supreme Court ruled the lawyer couldn’t get paid out of government reparations to the victims. Constitutional violation cases take time and a shit load of money to prosecute, something most victims don’t have.
There was a recent decision continuing this trend.
Even then that only works if they specificy that it’s because of a boycott, they could refuse to do business because the other guy smelt like a vegetarian omelette MRE which would be a valid reason. Anti-boycott laws are pretty universally easy to get around since a boycott functions on the principal of “I’m not buying that” which is pretty hard to prove the reasoning to.
fyi a vegetarian omlette is just an omlette, you’re probably thinking vegan, also yeah vegans are so annoying for randomly bringing it up huh
No, I know what I said. The naming scheme for military shit can be a bit weird but for the Vomellete in particular it’s because they were planning on bringing back a ham and eggs MRE equivalent. They never got to it since the Vomellete was so fucking bad, it was so bad that stevemre1989 gagged which is impressive since he has eaten food from the 1800s.
it didn’t really register that we’re talking about military rations
i was talking more generally, vegetarian diet includes eggs and milk, so idk what else they might have added, maybe some old unused cheese from the cheese caves
Removed by mod
Gosh I wonder how the democrats will vote on this.
How do you outlaw a boycott? It’s not an act, it’s a non-act. An absence of a purchase. How do you distinguish boycott from just not buying something you don’t want or need like any other item. Are we going to be required to put so much of our purchases toward Isreal now?
Ding ding ding.
This is how they “lawfully” throw “dissidents” into the gulag.
Remember…most of what Hitler did was technically legal and above-board. Because they controlled the laws and shaped them as they saw fit.
Wrong think will be punished
Not just show your papers, show your recent Israel approved consumer good purchases!
Twitter sued advertisers who said they were boycotting it, and it worked somehow…
You outlaw a boycott by using violence against those who promote the boycott. It’s not even anything new. Many states have already been doing this. Not to mention recent disappearances of anti-genocide activists.
Violence in service of hegemony is almost the entire purpose of the state.
the state wants to lock you up, figures out you don’t drink coca cola, You’re on trial for not buying Coca-Cola, or Nestle, or never tried Sabras hummus… straight to jail.
In other words, yes, precisely, they’re trying to sus out heretics. Don’t want to be mistaken for one? Perform the rites publicly, then.
boycott
probably using to target groups that are protesting against israel.
