undefined | Better HN

0 pointszahlman9mo ago0 comments

> Tangentially related, I never understood how the anti-BDS laws square with the first amendment

At my university, a portion of my dues went to funding BDS efforts (what expenses do they even have?) and I had no clear means to object to this. This was in Canada, but it seems to me perfectly fair to oppose that. That said:

> Most anti-BDS laws have taken one of two forms: contract-focused laws requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel; and investment-focused laws, mandating public investment funds to avoid entities boycotting Israel.

Substitute, for example, any domestic racial minority for "Israel"; does your opinion change?

0 comments

anonymars9mo ago

> At my university, a portion of my dues went to funding BDS efforts

Surely you can protest that at the university and it is not a government-enforced policy?

> Substitute, for example, any domestic racial minority for "Israel"

Is "Israel" a race or a country? Should a Canadian not be allowed to boycott the US?

zahlmanOP9mo ago

> Is "Israel" a race or a country? Should a Canadian not be allowed to boycott the US?

The legislation described does not prevent boycotts, except by government contractors who have a duty to government policy and thus do not necessarily enjoy those protections (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47986):

> Speech restrictions imposed by private entities, and government limits on its own speech, usually do not implicate the First Amendment.

As for public investment funds: you'll need to explain to me how saying that X may not invest in Y because Y is refusing to buy things from Z, causes Y to stop being able to refuse to buy things from Z (i.e., compels Y to buy things from Z).

If you want to not buy things from Israel, then... just don't. You don't need my money, or a private investment firm's, in order to achieve that.

anonymars9mo ago

> Speech restrictions imposed by private entities, and government limits on its own speech, usually do not implicate the First Amendment

How does this apply to the matter at hand? The restrictions on doing business are being imposed on (not by) a private entity, by (not on) the government. The government is free to do business with Israel if it so chooses

As a private entity doing business with the government, why is it permissible to boycott other countries or entities, but not Israel?

Moreover, why is this a state matter? What relevance is it to Kansas whether one boycotts a foreign country?

zahlmanOP9mo ago

>How does this apply to the matter at hand? The restrictions on doing business are being imposed on (not by) a private entity, by (not on) the government.

>requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

anonymars9mo ago

> At my university, a portion of my dues went to funding BDS efforts

Surely you can protest that at the university and it is not a government-enforced policy?

> Substitute, for example, any domestic racial minority for "Israel"

Is "Israel" a race or a country? Should a Canadian not be allowed to boycott the US?

zahlmanOP9mo ago

> Is "Israel" a race or a country? Should a Canadian not be allowed to boycott the US?

> Speech restrictions imposed by private entities, and government limits on its own speech, usually do not implicate the First Amendment.

If you want to not buy things from Israel, then... just don't. You don't need my money, or a private investment firm's, in order to achieve that.

anonymars9mo ago

> Speech restrictions imposed by private entities, and government limits on its own speech, usually do not implicate the First Amendment

As a private entity doing business with the government, why is it permissible to boycott other countries or entities, but not Israel?

Moreover, why is this a state matter? What relevance is it to Kansas whether one boycotts a foreign country?

zahlmanOP9mo ago

>How does this apply to the matter at hand? The restrictions on doing business are being imposed on (not by) a private entity, by (not on) the government.

>requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse