Comment on YSK that in several US States, it's illegal to boycott Israel

• CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        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.

        source
      • roofuskit@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        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.

        source
    • hector@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        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!”

        source

        • -> View More Comments