undefined | Better HN

0 pointsanonymars11mo ago0 comments

> 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?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

zahlman11mo ago· 2 in thread

>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

anonymarsOP11mo ago

I'm aware of what the law says. How does that justify such a law?

I don't really see any responses to any of the questions I have raised.

zahlman11mo ago

You originally asked how the provision holds up against the First Amendment. I showed how it is government contractors being restricted. Government contractors act on behalf of the government. I then showed how the First Amendment does not necessarily protect those who act on behalf of the government, because this is the government placing a limit "on its own speech".

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse