Considering that they have rigged consumer devices to explode, I think boycotting them is a very wise decision.
Kahanist exceptionalism.
deleted by creator
I’m not even American but how would you even prove that? (eg. Not buying certain products…?)
I heard about this a few years ago when I first moved here. It’s only for government contractors.
Ah, I see.
US headlines are often misleading internationally so that helps!
(of course one could read each article but thats hardly possible in total)
Don’t put words in the mouth of the law. We have something similar in TX. If you are a government employee you have to agree not to “boycott Israel”. It doesn’t say boycott Israeli products or companies. It says “boycott Israel” itself, so you just can’t say that you’ll never travel there.
Why me? I reached to the (it seems wrongly worded) news.
Try to be a bit more open minded to foreigners’ questions please.
It wasn’t meant as a slight to you. It was more a comment on how they worded the law.
Kind of like how the news will turn trumps ramblings into coherent thoughts. We shouldn’t modify the language of poorly written laws to make sense of them. That hurts the people governed by them.
I see, thanks for clearing that up and apologies for the misunderstanding.
The title is misleading. It bans state contractors from boycotting Israel, so there can be a certain amount of checking up.
Thank you!
You should know, that’s unconstitutional.
Edit: what the fuck is this appeals court smoking? “Money is speech… no not like that.” So I guess every political donation that is not known to the public is also not free speech?
You cannot dictate what a business or individual spends its money on or why. Burn this fucking state to the ground and start over.
They basically just ruled that piracy is legal for meta in their case about scraping Anna’s archieve for their AI.
The class divide is very literally getting baked into our legal framework. I know it’s always been there, in an unspoken manner, but it’s making strides in being letter of the law now.
what the fuck is this appeals court smoking?
A big joint labeled “AIPAC” that got passed to them in a Federalist Society blunt rotation.
You cannot dictate what a business or individual spends its money on or why.
You absolutely can and we routinely do. Just look at the embargo of Cuba, for instance.
You can ban imports, you cannot dictate that I buy products from fucking Walmart.
And yet… I would’t bat an eye if I saw a new executive order tomorrow requiring that.
Executive orders aren’t worth shit to citizens. All he can do is order the executive branch around.
Where do you think Walmart gets its merch? You’re just pointing to different steps in the supply chain.
The anti-BDS rules are, functionally speaking, not even bans on how you engage with the economy. They’re bans on your speech. You can go to Walmart or not. You can buy things or not. What you can’t do is step outside the store and announce “I didn’t purchase a Sodastream specifically because it would profit Israel”.
And, again, going back to Morse v. Frederick and Harisiades v. Shaughnessy and United States v. O’Brien all lay out instances in which the US government can restrict speech. This is just the latest encroachment.
What does that have to do with the argument? They’re pointing out that the government can restrict where you spend your money but the opposite is not true.
The government can restrict your actions - including where you choose to shop (or don’t shop) - based on your stated intent. That’s always been true. It’s the foundation for discrimination law - hiring and firing based on race, religion, or disability.
If you announce “I’m not hiring you because you’re unqualified” there’s no legal liability. If you announce “I’m not hiring you because you’re black”, that invokes legal liability. Arkansas is extending this line of reasoning to nation-of-origin. You cannot go into a store and say “I’m explicitly refusing to buy Israeli wine”. You cannot operate an investment bank or office that declares “We are explicitly boycotting every business of Israeli origin”. It’s now classified as a form of discrimination and one in which the state DA’s office has a zealous desire to prosecute.
Hiring is a different analogy that still doesnt really fit the situation well. If I work at Acme Corp and get quotes for materials from a company in Israel and one in Brazil and decide to go with Brazil because I dont agree with supporting genocide, how can the government compel me to instead purchase supplies from Israel? Beyond the whole ideological aspect of “free markets” and whether Republicans are major hypocrites or not, what legal mechanism is there for the government to require you to purchase generic items from a specific company solely based on the nation that company is located in regardless of price, quality, volume, etc? There’s zero chance there’s legitimate legal footing for this.
how can the government compel me to instead purchase supplies from Israel?
Just off the top, they can deny you future business with the state or federal government in turn. If you’re a company whose lifeblood is government contracts - Microsoft or Amazon being a couple of big classic examples, although any run-of-the-mill mid-sized construction company would also qualify - then this would be a death sentence.
But more broadly they can issue fines, sue for civil judgement and penalty, prosecute members of the company under whatever statues they’ve erected, or just send in the police/sheriff/national guard to shake you down without ever actually getting the DAs involved.
There’s zero chance there’s legitimate legal footing for this.
The law is what the courts say it is. And we’ve stacked our benches with right-wing assholes. In Arkansas, at least, I doubt you’ll have trouble finding a state supreme court willing to rule in favor of the government.
Unless you have a fiduciary responsibility to investors, which can still be satisfied if you think that business relationship would harm the businesses reputation, there’s nothing anyone can do to force you.
The 1st ammendment begs to differ.
I realize you are regurgitating The preposterous legal arguments of the lawmakers that have passed these laws but that Legal reasoning is laughable as it is for So-Called civil asset forfeiture Where the fifth Amendment against seizure of private property without due process does not apply because they charge your property not you. The State verse your wallet and car.
These are clearly bad faith ad hoc arguments they are making.
The 1st ammendment begs to differ.
The First Amendment isn’t self-executing.
that Legal reasoning is laughable as it is for So-Called civil asset forfeiture
Civil Asset Forfeiture is another great example of Government In Practice rather than Government In Theory. Like, we can wax poetic about the Ought, but I’m talking about the Is.
These are clearly bad faith ad hoc arguments they are making.
Arguments they’re winning by stacking the courts with judges predisposed to agree.
At some point, a system is what it does. You can’t just plug your ears and scream “My high school civics teacher told me this is wrong!”
Well also keep in mind that the Israelis have our politicians compromised, not just on the Epstein stuff, probably a range of issues, and seemingly our CIA and FBI did nothing to stop it if not more likely helped them do it.
seemingly our CIA and FBI did nothing to stop it
Why would they stop it? Hoover spent his entire career at the FBI trying to extort elected leaders into doing what he wanted.
Allowing a foreign intelligence agency to get blackmail on our politicians is in open Defiance of the reason for being of the FBI and CIA.
They clearly have their priorities screwed up, and by All Rights should live the rest of their lives in a work camp on the North Slope of Alaska building public housing for the inuit.
Allowing a foreign intelligence agency to get blackmail on our politicians is in open Defiance of the reason for being of the FBI and CIA.
Not if the foreign intelligence agency is working in concert with the FBI and CIA.
by All Rights should live the rest of their lives in a work camp on the North Slope of Alaska building public housing for the inuit
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting.
Yeah I know it is only getting worse by all indications.
This. This cannot be said enough.
*States
Fixed it for you. You are welcome.
Minnesota is in the same appeals circuit and deserves better.
i really really wish that were true. were it, i’d have the medicines i need.
Again, controlling imports is a long established power. The government cannot force you to buy from a specific business.
Even if, for instance, a state requires that liquor be purchased at a state store, THEY CANNOT FORCE YOU YO BUY THINGS THERE.
America is starting to feel that yoke
Starting? Shit ain’t funny any more… Not that its ever been honestly
YSK, that’s not what it says or means…
The headline you’ve written is factually inaccurate. They prevent the state from doing business with contractors who boycott Israel. It’s a very different thing. The state of Texas also prohibits its state employees from doing the same.
And Kansas. I had to sign a document acknowledging it. I have no intention of honoring that contract.
Texas takes it several steps further. Victims of Hurricane Harvey had to sign antiBDS statements. Flooding a few months ago added a disclaimer that you recognize the right for Israel to exist
It’s not just Arkansas, most states have antiBDS laws in place. Many of them do not allow contracting with the state, state employment, or receiving state disaster assistance if you hold BDS ideology.
BDS?
Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions
I only refuse to buy, want to get rid of our stake in, and want to restrict it. So I’m in the clear whew
Fuck Israel, genocidal scum!
Whether or not a boycott is protected speech is one thing (though I would think it is) but forcing someone to sign a pledge is absolutely compelled speech and a violation of the First Amendment. And from the dissent opinion on this most recent decision, it sounds like the law is ill-formed and overbroad.
If the government of Arkansas wants to not do business with contractors who boycott Israel, perhaps that’s their right. Forcing a pledge is not.
So if deliberately not buying Israeli stuff is illegal, does that imply everyone has to buy a minimum of Israeli stuff? Or can they continue to not buy Israeli stuff, as long as it’s without mens rea?
Boycott and just be quiet about it
How can it be illegal to boycott something? You’re required by law to buy things from Israel?
So the state forces you to buy from Israel?
What a country.
It’s for State contracts apparently.
Hardly surprising from people whose family tree looks more like a circle.
California and New York have similar laws
Those in purple have anti BDS laws in placeThat’s a really fucked up thing to say. I get it’s a joke, but holy hell.
Wait until you hear about Alabama
They got a fresh injection of Nazi cum back in the 1940s. And their proliferation of military bases has turned Alabama into a hotspot for military wives and attendant Jodys.
Alabama hasn’t been The Hills Have Eyes in a long, long time. Now its more in line with the Nazi Moon Colony from Iron Sky.
I dream of a world where southern states can come up casually on internet platforms without anyone making incest jokes.
