[HN Gopher] It's Time to Reaffirm Our First Amendment Right to B...
___________________________________________________________________
It's Time to Reaffirm Our First Amendment Right to Boycott
Author : Something1234
Score : 54 points
Date : 2022-11-26 21:45 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.aclu.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.aclu.org)
| nxm wrote:
| I've lost all respect for ACLU. In 2014 they were warning against
| forced vaccinations, and then during Covid they changed their
| mind and were all for firing public and private employees if they
| refused the jab. They're just an extension of the left's ideology
| at this point.
| jl6 wrote:
| Is it normal for a government contract to mandate that the
| contractor does or does not profess a specific political opinion?
| This feels very not normal.
| mkoubaa wrote:
| I bring this particular issue up anytime I hear that cancel
| culture was a contribution of the political left.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Boycotting is not cancel culture, IMO. It's one thing to vote
| with your wallet, or vocally protest against a company. It's
| another thing entirely to go after someone _personally_ and
| attempt to ruin their life for something they 've done to
| offend you. I suspect that's the problem most people are
| thinking of when they use the term 'cancel culture.' Like
| Justine Sacco. Totally horrid leveraging of the power of the
| Internet to destroy an individual.
| upbeat_general wrote:
| I've very often heard cancel culture used to refer to
| "cancelling" of companies so I'm not sure I agree with that
| statement.
|
| Also the line can be blurry with celebrities since they will
| engage in business deals.
| tetrep wrote:
| > The court of appeals reasoned that because one can't know the
| meaning of a decision not to purchase from a business unless it
| is accompanied by speech, the boycott itself is not protected,
| and the state is free to single out and penalize the boycotts it
| disfavors.
|
| Wow. Using the same logic as that ruling, donating to politicians
| is not protected by the 1st Amendment unless you also include a
| memo making clear your intent...
|
| This feels like more "I'll know it when I see it" but with intent
| instead of porn.
| User23 wrote:
| The logic is very simple. You just can't boycott Israel.
|
| Edit: And you can't post about how you can't boycott Israel
| either.
| erik_seaberg wrote:
| To steelman the other side, you can't work for the US
| government while antagonizing a formal ally of the US
| government.
| pie_flavor wrote:
| It is genuinely offensive to hear them comparing the Alabama bus
| boycotts to companies receiving government contracts. They know
| perfectly well that an individual right to boycott has never been
| in danger; they're just rattling the collection plate.
| version_five wrote:
| This is much more subtle than the article makes it out to be. I
| don't think I understand it well enough to have a clear position,
| but here is what comes to mind:
|
| They are asking that companies affirm they won't boycott Isreal
| (this is almost certainly why the ACLU cares, but anyway) _in
| exchange for government contracts_.
|
| Does anybody know how the constitution applies in such
| situations? What comes to mind is the drug testing requirement
| for federal contracts. Police can't just come up and randomly
| drug test you, but you can agree to it in exchange for money. Why
| is this different? It feels like there are lots of business
| situations where you essentially give up a right as part of a
| contract.
|
| I understand why the newspaper doesn't sign, I probably wouldn't
| either. But then I wouldn't expect to get the money.
| oytis wrote:
| If it was a requirement from a private contractor that would
| probably be fine (and could be an exercise of the First
| Amendment by itself). But with government contracts it looks
| like the amendment should be applied here.
| chadash wrote:
| Say that a company is called The White Power Group and is
| known to spew what most would consider hate speech. They bid
| to provide government offices with toilet paper. Should the
| government be allowed to turn them down?
| connicpu wrote:
| I still cannot wrap my head around the idea of making a boycott
| illegal. If it's not accompanied by speech, what is the
| difference between someone who actively avoids a product or one
| who simply would not have purchased it in the first place? How
| can that possibly be enforced? If I sign that form and then
| happen to not buy any of the products I'm not supposed to
| boycott, have I violated the contract?
| nerdponx wrote:
| It's not illegal, but it does disqualify you from getting a
| federal government business contract. I think this is more of a
| gray area than advocates would like to make you believe.
|
| Whatever you might feel about Israel, you can't deny the fact
| that they are a strategically valuable geopolitical ally, and
| it's not unreasonable for the federal government to avoid doing
| businesses with companies that are actively and publicly
| boycotting a strategic ally.
| luckylion wrote:
| If it's not announced, if your intentions are not known, is it
| a boycott? I'd say no, because you're not boycotting Store A if
| you're shopping at Store B for some reason other than your hate
| of Store A for store-unrelated reasons (e.g. the political
| stance of the store owner, or the color of their skin).
| bb88 wrote:
| The original American colonists boycotted the tea from England.
| Under the appeals court ruling, things like boycotting twitter
| would be illegal.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| I wasn't aware of this issue, and as framed by the ACLU it's
| pretty alarming.
|
| That said, experience tells me to _always_ get both sides of a
| story. Can anyone suggest a good representation of the other
| sides ' position?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Interesting, I had no idea that this was a thing. I think it is
| perfectly sensible to prohibit employees from using their
| personal conscience to boycott with company (or government)
| funds, as it isn't their own money. But prohibiting them
| personally? That should be protected absolutely. And companies
| should be permitted to boycott as well, when the decision is
| actually a company decision and not just a rando employee.
| enkid wrote:
| I could understand the US government not allowing certain
| companies to boycott foreign governments, as you start getting
| companies affecting foreign policy, which isn't a great
| position to be in. To me, this should be limited to limits the
| federal government can place on business conducted specifically
| for the federal government, and shouldn't extend to individuals
| working for that company. For example, they should be able to
| specify that a national security company has to be willing to
| purchase parts from a specific foreign country for the business
| it does with the federal government. I feel like anything other
| than that should be protected speech.
| gladiatr72 wrote:
| https://youtu.be/x0Lc5b8Flto
|
| Heh. Hehe. Yeah. The parasites that took over have lost their
| minds at last. Its support for actual civil liberties has been
| provisional for years and now asks (specifically) for funds in
| the name of the first amendment... I mean, damn...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-26 23:00 UTC)