ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th January 2019, 12:41 PM   #1
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 71,565
Signing pledge not to boycott Israel & yes, Rubio is that ignorant about free speech

Both topics are related so the thread is to discuss either.

A bunch of state governments thought it would be a great idea to require contractors doing business with the state to sign a pledge not to join the boycott of Israel (the same way South Africa was boycotted to end Apartheid).

It's a no-brainer violation of the First Amendment, the government suppressing free speech, and has been found so by the courts. Not all of these no-boycott pledge laws have been ended.

Now comes Rubio (think he wants jewish money for his next POTUS run? ) trying to introduce federal legislation allowing this practice. His rationale: the citizen has a free speech right to boycott and the government should have the free speech right to counter-protest.

Yes folks Rubio is that stupid.

Times of Israel: Progressive groups rage against Rubio’s anti-BDS bill
Quote:
As US senator tries to push through legislation during shutdown, J Street and ACLU cast bill as ‘outrageous’ and unconstitutional...

WASHINGTON — Progressive advocacy groups have railed against an attempt by US senators to push through a bill that would protect states that penalize Israel boycotters, with one Jewish organization labeling it a “farce.”

Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Idaho Senator James Risch, both Republicans, introduced the first bill last week to be considered in the GOP-controlled Senate, which combined several bills that died in the last Congress.
Quote:
“The legislation, like the unconstitutional state anti-boycott laws it condones, sends a message to Americans that they will be penalized if they dare to disagree with their government,” said ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Kathleen Ruane. “We therefore urge senators to vote no on the Combatting BDS Act next week.”

More than 25 states have passed measures that target BDS adherents. Those laws have already been challenged in the courts. In September, an Arizona judge ruled that the state’s law that required state contractors to certify that they are not participating in boycotts of Israel didn’t hold constitutional muster.
Combined with the Trump/GOP government, this stuff is a tad scary.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 12:56 PM   #2
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,696
For those in the back...

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE FREE SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 01:08 PM   #3
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19,277
I was having trouble parsing this with the double-negatives.



  • BDS means to boycott Israel, so NOT to do business with Israel.
  • State governments want contractors to sign a pledge NOT to sign BDS, that is, NOT to NOT do business with Israel. Which obviously is a restriction on free speech, affects mostly companies with international scope, and doesn't in any way require companies to do business with Israel. Symbolic, unconstitutional and ineffective.
  • Rubio wants to introduce legislation to "allow this practice" - meaning that the feds will support / indemnify somehow the states with the pledges.
Unconstitutional state laws can't be sanctioned by the feds. This isn't going anywhere, and Rubio is acting like a typical Senator, full of sound and fury yet signifying nothing.

Totally off-topic, based on my own typos while writing this... If Trump was more savvy linguistically, he might have nicknamed Senator "rubia" - a blond woman.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 01:27 PM   #4
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 42,539
Stupid,stupid law.
And I do not support boycotting Israel.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 02:07 PM   #5
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 47,400
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
I was having trouble parsing this with the double-negatives.
My nature is contrarian enough that the best way to encourage me to do something is to order me not to do it. So in this case I'm confused...should I send Israel some money or not? Whatever it is they're telling me I can't not not do, I want to be sure to do it, out of spite. Nobody doesn't not tell me I can't not not do something. Or not.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 02:10 PM   #6
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 45,162
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Both topics are related so the thread is to discuss either.

A bunch of state governments thought it would be a great idea to require contractors doing business with the state to sign a pledge not to join the boycott of Israel (the same way South Africa was boycotted to end Apartheid).
Of course Isreal was always really close with South Africa then and helped them get around all those annoying sanctions.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 02:21 PM   #7
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 71,565
Blatantly unconstitutional and yet:

Anti-BDS Laws Challenged as Unconstitutional After Speech Pathologist Loses Job at Texas School for Refusing to Sign Pro-Israel Pledge
Quote:
According to a database maintained by a U.S.-based pro-Israel group, through executive orders and state-level legislation, elected officials in 26 states have imposed restrictions on people who wish to back BDS—a movement that was inspired by the 1980s initiative that helped force an end to racial apartheid in South Africa.

As Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, noted on Twitter, legislators in several other states are currently considering similar "laws that subordinate Americans' free-speech rights to Israel's 'right' to continue the occupation without criticism or consequence."
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 02:25 PM   #8
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,007
Listen people Israel has to continue existing so it can be destroyed to herald the return of the Baby Jeebus when the end time start.

There has to be an Israel so there can be Israelites so they can play the Alderaan role in America's Religious Right's Left Behind self insert fan fiction.

God it's like you people don't understand politics at all.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 02:56 PM   #9
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 42,539
Oh, I perfectly understand that a lot of the more extreme support of Israel is not based on any concern for the Jews, but upon Israel having to exist for a period until it is destroyed as part of the End Times.
It's possible to support Israel's right to defend itself but think Bibi is an idiot and an Alpha Hotel.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 02:58 PM   #10
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,115
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
She did not lose her job for refusing to sign a pro-Israel pledge; that is ridiculous. The Volokh Conspiracy (a legal blog) obtained a copy of the pledge:

Quote:
Note that, consistent with the language and obvious intent of the law (see the text here, it's even titled "PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH COMPANIES BOYCOTTING ISRAEL"), the school district certification applies to the business, "it," not the individual "she." Contrary to what I've been reading all over the internet, Ms. Amawi is not being asked to pledge that she, in her personal capacity, will not privately boycott Israel, much less that, e.g., she will not advocate for boycotting Israel or otherwise refrain from criticizing Israel.

Briefly on the First Amendment issue, it's no different analytically than requiring a contractor to pledge that the business does not refuse to hire Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, veterans, or another state-designated group.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 04:03 PM   #11
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,492
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
She did not lose her job for refusing to sign a pro-Israel pledge; that is ridiculous. The Volokh Conspiracy (a legal blog) obtained a copy of the pledge:



Fine. Her company (which consists of herself) lost its contract with the school because its proprietor (herself) refused to sign the pledge. Consequently her company (herself) no longer had the revenue to continue to compensate her(self) for her services and she lost her income.

That's totally different from her losing her job because she herself wouldn't sign a pledge. Legally, she and her sole proprietorship are two separate entities, which makes what happened totally okay and constitutional.

And that's some FOTL-level hair splitting right there.
__________________
A zřmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 05:08 PM   #12
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,115
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post


Fine. Her company (which consists of herself) lost its contract with the school because its proprietor (herself) refused to sign the pledge. Consequently her company (herself) no longer had the revenue to continue to compensate her(self) for her services and she lost her income.

That's totally different from her losing her job because she herself wouldn't sign a pledge. Legally, she and her sole proprietorship are two separate entities, which makes what happened totally okay and constitutional.

And that's some FOTL-level hair splitting right there.
It was written by a law school professor at George Mason University. Pardon me if I ask whether you have similar credentials to offer? It's a criterion I use to help judge how much weight to give to someone's opinion.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 05:15 PM   #13
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 71,565
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
It was written by a law school professor at George Mason University. Pardon me if I ask whether you have similar credentials to offer? It's a criterion I use to help judge how much weight to give to someone's opinion.
Maybe that guy should lose his job.

Besides, two words: Citizen's United. Corporations are people man.


As for our credentials, all sorts of legal experts and a couple of judges addressing court cases all agree the requirement is blatantly unconstitutional.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 29th January 2019 at 05:17 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2019, 09:03 AM   #14
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,897
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
She did not lose her job for refusing to sign a pro-Israel pledge; that is ridiculous. The Volokh Conspiracy (a legal blog) obtained a copy of the pledge:
Bernstein is taking the purely "legal" p.o.v. based on what the courts have upheld in discrimination suits. The assumption that she's a private firm and thus not a private individual is a little hairy. If the only way she can get the job as a speech pathologist in that school system is to agree to be a private contractor (and as anyone in business knows, that's a scam that is perfectly legal, too), then it's pretty hard to argue that she's not personally being asked to sign the agreement but that her legal self is?

Naaah, she likely had the support of the ACLU and this is a case designed to go through the higher courts where it will be struck down like all the others.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2019, 09:28 AM   #15
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 45,162
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Oh, I perfectly understand that a lot of the more extreme support of Israel is not based on any concern for the Jews, but upon Israel having to exist for a period until it is destroyed as part of the End Times.
It's possible to support Israel's right to defend itself but think Bibi is an idiot and an Alpha Hotel.
At least the fiction of independent states for the subject peoples is getting more people to buy it than it did for South Africa.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2019, 02:00 AM   #16
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,023
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
It was written by a law school professor at George Mason University. Pardon me if I ask whether you have similar credentials to offer? It's a criterion I use to help judge how much weight to give to someone's opinion.
For a law professor he needs to do a better job.

1) With the decision of Citizen's United, Corporations are now considered to have 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech by The SCotUS. Other SC decisions also have reflected this, such as the granting Freedom of Religion 1st amendment rights to companies wanting to avoid paying for Healthcare that included Birth Control. Because of this, a Company has the 1st Amendment right to participate in a Boycott as political speech, and the Government may not act against them for it

2) Israel is a country and has no protected status. Race, Color, Religion or creed, National origin or ancestry, Sex, Age, Physical or mental disability, Veteran status, Genetic information, and Citizenship. A Country has none of these, they only apply to people and as such, while a company could not refuse service to a person on grounds of any of the protected statuses, a country having none can be refused service for any reason.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2019, 04:46 AM   #17
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 47,400
I'd say it falls under the bit about states not being allowed to conduct foreign relations, isn't that exclusively the bailiwick of the feds?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2019, 01:19 PM   #18
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 42,539
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'd say it falls under the bit about states not being allowed to conduct foreign relations, isn't that exclusively the bailiwick of the feds?
It's in a gray area,really; States cannot have official relations with other coutnries.but you see the Governors of states visit foreign countries to promote economic ties between that country and their state all the time.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2019, 04:13 PM   #19
Axiom_Blade
Master Poster
 
Axiom_Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,961
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
It was written by a law school professor at George Mason University. Pardon me if I ask whether you have similar credentials to offer? It's a criterion I use to help judge how much weight to give to someone's opinion.
Is Glenn Greenwald a good enough legal expert for you? Because he thinks the whole thing is bollocks, too.

Quote:
Amawi, as the mother of four young children and a professional speech pathologist, is not a leader of any political movements: She has simply made the consumer choice to support the boycott by avoiding the purchase of products from Israeli companies in Israel or the occupied West Bank. She also occasionally participates in peaceful activism in defense of Palestinian self-determination that includes advocacy of the global boycott to end the Israeli occupation.
And it gets worse!

Quote:
The bill’s language is so sweeping that some victims of Hurricane Harvey, which devastated Southwest Texas in late 2017, were told that they could only receive state disaster relief if they first signed a pledge never to boycott Israel. That demand was deeply confusing to those hurricane victims in desperate need of help but who could not understand what their views of Israel and Palestine had to do with their ability to receive assistance from their state government.
Quote:
At the time that Texas enacted the law barring contractors from supporting a boycott of Israel, it was the 17th state in the country to do so. As of now, 26 states have enacted such laws — including blue states run by Democrats such as New York, California, and New Jersey — while similar bills are pending in another 13 states.
Axiom_Blade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2019, 10:28 PM   #20
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,115
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
For a law professor he needs to do a better job.

1) With the decision of Citizen's United, Corporations are now considered to have 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech by The SCotUS. Other SC decisions also have reflected this, such as the granting Freedom of Religion 1st amendment rights to companies wanting to avoid paying for Healthcare that included Birth Control. Because of this, a Company has the 1st Amendment right to participate in a Boycott as political speech, and the Government may not act against them for it.
Damn, that's a good argument.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.