A lot of things in legal-world can actually work this way. Intent matters. So if you’re distributing a document that calls for boycotting Israel, that can be illegal (I mean… arguably, I guess, under this awful law). If you’re in charge of a purchasing agency, and you suddenly drop all your Israel-aligned contracts, that can be illegal. If you’re denying mortgages to people of a certain color, that can be illegal.
No one can stop you from the individual actions, but if someone can prove that it was part of a coordinated effort to achieve one particular goal (which it kind of has to be coordinated in order to achieve any impact) then it can be illegal.
The first of those should fail under free speech, so long as it doesn’t call for overt harm the proposal of a boycott would be similar to arguing against a political candidate.
The second would be difficult to argue unless the company had a formal procurement process that mandated bids and specific rules it could be said they went against.
The last is more classic racist denial and could certainly be prosecuted, but somewhat turns the tables in that the provider is refusing service to a potential client.
I forget the outcome of the ‘gay wedding cakes’ case from a while back, but the general argument is that while a vendor should serve all valid customers equally, a client need not give equal chance to a vendor who they disagree with the policies of.
I’m going to to stop you right there. I do actually agree with you 100%, I’m just saying that “no one can prove I didn’t do this action for X innocent reason” falls apart in how the actual law is actually applied (and regardless of whether the law is being applied for a reasonable reason in the first place, which of course this one is not).
How do you ban a boycott? Forced consumption?
A lot of things in legal-world can actually work this way. Intent matters. So if you’re distributing a document that calls for boycotting Israel, that can be illegal (I mean… arguably, I guess, under this awful law). If you’re in charge of a purchasing agency, and you suddenly drop all your Israel-aligned contracts, that can be illegal. If you’re denying mortgages to people of a certain color, that can be illegal.
No one can stop you from the individual actions, but if someone can prove that it was part of a coordinated effort to achieve one particular goal (which it kind of has to be coordinated in order to achieve any impact) then it can be illegal.
The first of those should fail under free speech, so long as it doesn’t call for overt harm the proposal of a boycott would be similar to arguing against a political candidate.
The second would be difficult to argue unless the company had a formal procurement process that mandated bids and specific rules it could be said they went against.
The last is more classic racist denial and could certainly be prosecuted, but somewhat turns the tables in that the provider is refusing service to a potential client.
I forget the outcome of the ‘gay wedding cakes’ case from a while back, but the general argument is that while a vendor should serve all valid customers equally, a client need not give equal chance to a vendor who they disagree with the policies of.
I’m going to to stop you right there. I do actually agree with you 100%, I’m just saying that “no one can prove I didn’t do this action for X innocent reason” falls apart in how the actual law is actually applied (and regardless of whether the law is being applied for a reasonable reason in the first place, which of course this one is not).
If your soda machine is not a Sodastream, you’re under suspicion.