Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

US federal court struck down a Kansas law that punishes BDS supporters


Recommended Posts

By the way, in case it was missed, in a Major Free Speech Victory, a Federal Court Strikes Down a Law that Punishes Supporters of Israel Boycott

 

A FEDERAL JUDGE on Tuesday ruled that a Kansas law designed to punish people who boycott Israel is an unconstitutional denial of free speech. The ruling is a significant victory for free speech rights because the global campaign to criminalize, or otherwise legally outlaw, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement has been spreading rapidly in numerous political and academic centers in the U.S. This judicial decision definitively declares those efforts — when they manifest in the U.S. — to be a direct infringement of basic First Amendment rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Link

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Argus said:

I'm sure all the Jew haters will rejoice.

Congrats! You're the first one here with the anti-semite card! Thank you for adding nothing, again!

Why are you not rejoicing that free speech is being protected? Are you not for free speech?

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

On the one hand, college students shouldn't protest Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson because that's shutting down free speech.  On the other hand, unconstitutional laws should be passed to prevent criticism of Isreal.

This double standard can be seen "on the left" (my apologies for the labels) as well. 

I wonder how many people who are happy about this court ruling were calling for people like ben shapiro and ann coulter not to make speeches.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the BDS movement is wrong and I disagree with its motivations, goals, and reasoning. However, I support the right of people to their free speech and free expression, including the right to boycott things they don't like. 

When it comes to this particular law though, as far as I understand it's not a free speech issue; it's a government funding issue. The government is not telling people they can't boycott Israel and threatening them with criminal or civil penalties if they do. Rather, it is specifying that government funding should not flow to companies that boycott Israel (to those debating this topic, please read past the headlines). Therefore casting the debate over this law as an attack on free speech is not reasonable, in my opinion. Individuals and organizations have the right to free speech, which means no interference from the government in expressing themselves, but it doesn't mean they have the right to taxpayer money. 

 

Edited by Bonam
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Personally I think the BDS movement is wrong and I disagree with its motivations, goals, and reasoning. However, I support the right of people to their free speech and free expression, including the right to boycott things they don't like. 

Nice to hear that you're on the side of free speech and the right to boycott.

 

24 minutes ago, Bonam said:

When it comes to this particular law though, as far as I understand it's not a free speech issue; it's a government funding issue. The government is not telling people they can't boycott Israel and threatening them with criminal or civil penalties if they do. Rather, it is specifying that government funding should not flow to companies that boycott Israel (to those debating this topic, please read past the headlines). Therefore casting the debate over this law as an attack on free speech is not reasonable, in my opinion. Individuals and organizations have the right to free speech, which means no interference from the government in expressing themselves, but it doesn't mean they have the right to taxpayer money. 

 

You should read the judicial decision. The decision is, in fact, in regards to free speech and the violation of the plaintiff's first amendment

It flatly declared that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott. “Plaintiff’s harm stems not from her decision to refuse to sign the certification,” it reasoned, “but rather from the plainly unconstitutional choice the Kansas Law forces plaintiff to make: She either can contract with the state or she can support a boycott of Israel. Her harm is ongoing because the Kansas Law is currently chilling plaintiff’s and other putative state contractors’ speech rights.”

Link

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

This judicial decision definitively declares those efforts — when they manifest in the U.S. — to be a direct infringement of basic First Amendment rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

 

 

 

 

I wonder what happens..............

 

....if some American folks in the USA - in a patriotic effort to prevent any possible funding to Islamic terror acts -  call for the boycott of all Muslim-owned  businesses?  And, actively participate in the boycott?

 

 

What's good for the goose must be good for the gander.

Edited by betsy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, betsy said:

I wonder what happens..............

 

....if some American folks in the USA - in a patriotic effort to prevent any possible funding to Islamic terror acts -  call for the boycott of all Muslim-owned  businesses?  And, actively participate in the boycott?

 

 

What's good for the goose must be good for the gander.

Your thought process works in a strange way. If you think a country should be boycotted based on something you don't agree with, then that's a better comparison.

No one is saying "Jews" or "Christians" or "Muslims" should be boycotted (even though anyone should have the right to boycott). 

Newsflash: Not all Muslims support Islamic terror. Just like not all Jews support Israeli terror.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, betsy said:

some American folks in the USA - in a patriotic effort to prevent any possible funding to Islamic terror acts -  call for the boycott of all Muslim-owned  businesses?  And, actively participate in the boycott?

I guess they'd have that right, eh?  We can boycott whomever we wish for whatever reason.  And we can argue with people about their reasons, too, if we want to.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, marcus said:

Your thought process works in a strange way. If you think a country should be boycotted based on something you don't agree with, then that's a better comparison.

No one is saying "Jews" or "Christians" or "Muslims" should be boycotted (even though anyone should have the right to boycott). 

Newsflash: Not all Muslims support Islamic terror. Just like not all Jews support Israeli terror.

I'm referring to the judicial ruling.  First Ammendment rights.  Same thing.

 

 

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dialamah said:

I guess they'd have that right, eh?  We can boycott whomever we wish for whatever reason.  And we can argue with people about their reasons, too, if we want to.  

Well, yeah! 

First Amendment right is supposed to be for everyone!

 

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, betsy said:

I'm referring to the judicial ruling.  First Ammendment rights.  Same thing.

 

 

By bringing up the boycotting of Muslims, you are trying to draw a parallel between a racist behaviour (boycotting a large, diverse people, scattered across the world) to a non-racist behaviour (boycotting a government that will not change for the better - which is boycotting a country based on their actions.)

Racism stems from ignorance. You also equated Muslims to funders and backers of terrorism. 

Here is your comment:

Quote

I wonder what happens..............

....if some American folks in the USA - in a patriotic effort to prevent any possible funding to Islamic terror acts -  call for the boycott of all Muslim-owned  businesses?  And, actively participate in the boycott?

 

What would happen if some people boycotted Muslim businesses, based on their ignorant and racist mindset? First of all, they would have the right (and should have the right) to be bigoted and ignorant. More than likely, these loud minorities would be looked down upon by the larger society. Especially as the millenials and the generations after them take a bigger role in guiding our path.

With every generation, we become smarter, more inclusive and more empathetic. Part of this transition includes those who are unable to adapt to change and bettering themselves. 

The weak, like those who don't accept that climate change is man-made. Or those who are holding onto and are allowing fairytales to guide their beliefs, instead of logic and curiousity to learn, will die off and will be pushed aside through the inevitable transition 

Edited by marcus
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, marcus said:

By bringing up the boycotting of Muslims, you are trying to draw a parallel between a racist behaviour (boycotting a large, diverse people, scattered across the world) to a non-racist behaviour (boycotting a government that will not change for the better - which is boycotting a country based on their actions.)

Racism stems from ignorance. You also equated Muslims to funders and backers of terrorism. 

Here is your comment:

What would happen if some people boycotted Muslim businesses, based on their ignorant and racist mindset? First of all, they would have the right (and should have the right) to be bigoted and ignorant. More than likely, these loud minorities would be looked down upon by the larger society. Especially as the millenials and the generations after them take a bigger role in guiding our path.

With every generation, we become smarter, more inclusive and more empathetic. Part of this transition includes those who are unable to adapt to change and bettering themselves. 

The weak, like those who don't accept that climate change is man-made. Or those who are holding onto and are allowing fairytales to guide their beliefs, instead of logic and curiousity to learn, will die off and will be pushed aside through the inevitable transition 

Whether calling for boycott of anyone or anything is racist,  misguided, or silly, or unfair...........is irrelevant.

I'm referring to the judicial ruling regarding the first amendment.  Read the article!

 

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, betsy said:

Whether calling for boycott of anyone or anything is racist,  misguided, or silly, or unfair...........is irrelevant.

I'm referring to the judicial ruling regarding the first amendment.  Read the article!

 

You either don't understand my response or you are not articulating your opinion well.

I posted the judicial ruling. What are you trying to say? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2018 at 8:15 PM, dialamah said:

On the one hand, college students shouldn't protest Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson because that's shutting down free speech.  On the other hand, unconstitutional laws should be passed to prevent criticism of Isreal.

Good points. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, marcus said:

You either don't understand my response or you are not articulating your opinion well.

I posted the judicial ruling. What are you trying to say? 

Read your latest response above......then, apply my answer.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Quote

 

On 3/13/2018 at 8:15 PM, dialamah said:

On the one hand, college students shouldn't protest Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson because that's shutting down free speech.  On the other hand, unconstitutional laws should be passed to prevent criticism of Isreal.

 

College students aren't merely protesting.  They're enforcing their will that speakers they don't agree with shouldn't be heard by others.  They're shutting down venues.

In other words, these college students are the ones dictating what should and shouldn't be heard. People shouldn't  be prevented from exercising their rights.  People can choose whether they want to listen to Shapiro or not.  No one should take it upon themselves to make the decision for them!

No one should intimidate or block people from attending!

 

 

 

 

The liberals are enforcing a dictatorial system!

 

 
Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, betsy said:

College students aren't merely protesting.  They're enforcing their will that speakers they don't agree with shouldn't be heard by others.  They're shutting down venues.

In other words, these college students are the ones dictating what should and shouldn't be heard. People shouldn't  be prevented from exercising their rights.  People can choose whether they want to listen to Shapiro or not.  No one should take it upon themselves to make the decision for them!

No one should intimidate or block people from attending!

The liberals are enforcing a dictatorial system!

Didn't we already agree that the court made the right decision?  Clearly, you aren't one of those who would support laws limiting free speech (criticism of Isreal, boycott of businesses) while at the same time condemning students for preventing others from speaking.   

I have said before, and will repeat, that I don't agree with students making it impossible for someone to speak through violence or interrupting a speaker with noise, or yelling etc. But I fully support their right to object through peaceful means - letters, petitions, standing around outside a venue with signs, things like that.  Perhaps we actually agree here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dialamah said:

Didn't we already agree that the court made the right decision?  Clearly, you aren't one of those who would support laws limiting free speech (criticism of Isreal, boycott of businesses) while at the same time condemning students for preventing others from speaking.   

I have said before, and will repeat, that I don't agree with students making it impossible for someone to speak through violence or interrupting a speaker with noise, or yelling etc. But I fully support their right to object through peaceful means - letters, petitions, standing around outside a venue with signs, things like that.  Perhaps we actually agree here?

I'm responding to your comment about protesting right-wing speakers.  I'm pointing out that there's a difference between rightful protests, and bullying (to put it mildly). 

The leftists "protests" are almost, always ending up in vandalism and/or, looting and violence!  Like this one:

 

 

Quote

Chicago students trash Walmart during walkout over gun violence

http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/local/chicago-students-trash-walmart-during-walkout-over-gun-violence

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2018 at 8:15 PM, dialamah said:

  On the other hand, unconstitutional laws should be passed to prevent criticism of Isreal.

....or (in Canada and UK), criticism of Islam.  

 

------------------------

 

 I can understand the efforts to support Israel - US has been a staunch supporter of Israel, and they're involved in a war against a common enemy:  Islamic terrorists.

Furthermore, Palestine does not recognize Israel's right to exist.

 

The US and Israel are allies - the same way that the US and England were allies in WW2!

 

If this has been WW2, would it be deemed unconstitutional to punish those Americans who calls to boycott England (and in the process, hurt her economy?), because they don't agree with England bombing Germany? 

If you hurt and try to diminish the capacity of an ally to fight the war, the US will also be affected!

 

Supporters of Germany would've been lucky if they simply just lose benefits, or get fined in what could be called a........... treasonous act!

 

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, betsy said:

....or (in Canada and UK), criticism of Islam.  

 

------------------------

 

 I can understand the efforts to support Israel - US has been a staunch supporter of Israel, and they're involved in a war against a common enemy:  Islamic terrorists.

Furthermore, Palestine does not recognize Israel's right to exist.

 

The US and Israel are allies - the same way that the US and England were allies in WW2!

 

If this has been WW2, would it be deemed unconstitutional to punish those Americans who calls to boycott England (and in the process, hurt her economy?), because they don't agree with England bombing Germany? 

If you hurt and try to diminish the capacity of an ally to fight the war, the US will also be affected!

 

Supporters of Germany would've been lucky if they simply just lose benefits, or get fined in what could be called a........... treasonous act!

 

Here you are again, trying to draw a ridiculous parallel between Israel's blatant violations of human rights and international law against the Palestinian 'people' and, wait for it: England bombing the Nazis. 

The BDS movement is not about helping Islamic Terrorists. You need to understand simple facts, before coming out with your opinions.

OVERVIEW

The call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

In 2005, Palestinian civil society organisations called for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) as a form of non-violent pressure on Israel.

The BDS movement was launched by 170 Palestinian unions, political parties, refugee networks, women’s organisations, professional associations, popular resistance committees and other Palestinian civil society bodies.

Inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, the Palestinian BDS call urges nonviolent pressure on Israel until it complies with international law by meeting three demands:

1) Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall

  • International law recognises the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel. As part of its military occupation, Israel steals land and forces Palestinians into ghettos, surrounded by checkpoints, settlements and watchtowers and an illegal apartheid Wall. Israel has imposed a medieval siege on Gaza , turning it into the largest open air prison in the world. Israel also regularly carries out large-scale assaults on Gaza that are widely condemned as constituting war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

2) Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality

  • One-fifth of Israel’s citizens are Palestinians who remained inside the armistice lines after 1948. They are subjected to a system of racial discrimination enshrined in more than 50 laws that impact every aspect of their lives. The Israeli government continues to forcibly displace Palestinian communities in Israel from their land. Israeli leaders routinely and openly incite racial violence against them.

 

3) Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194

  • Since its violent establishment in 1948 through the ethnic cleansing of more than half of the indigenous people of Palestine, Israel has set out to control as much land and uproot as many Palestinians as it can. As a result of this systematic forced displacement, there are now more than 7.25 million Palestinian refugees. They are denied their right to return to their homes simply because they are not Jewish.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Similar Content

    • By J4L
      This situation would not exist if Israel had followed through with driving the Arabs out of the region after the Six Day War.  Now the Antisemitic UN condemns Israel for everything.  At this point, I think it is quite obvious that no matter what the Jewish state does, it will be condemned. In an ideal world, granting the Arabs a Palestinian statehood would be an ideal solution, but I cannot help but to think the Arabs would still call for the destruction of Israel.
    • By Virginia
      I was impressed that Ted Cruz voluntarily renounced his Canadian citizenship to show his dedication to representing the United States. I would admire Andrew Scheer if he did the equivalent thing, renouncing his American citizenship to show his dedication to Canada, since he is running for Prime Minister in a few months.
      This is actually MANDATORY to run for office in Australia, or even to hold citizenship at all in Japan. I think it is important that our political representatives, if not all our citizens, should show their dedication to representing our nation first, and not have backup plans to reside in other nations if things go wrong.
      The only way I could be wrong about this is if Andrew's dad (deacon James D. Scheer, who was born in the Bronx in New York) immigrated to Canada prior to turning 19, or if he renounced his citizenship prior to Andrew's birth in 1979. Andrew hasn't supplied any evidence either of these things happened (James' older brother died in the Bronx, so the family as a whole never left) so I believe it is reasonable to assume he holds American citizenship by birthright by default.
    • By Philip Hebbard
      Reportedly, four Israeli soldiers are injured by an alleged explosive. In response, two Palestinians are killed in a tank shelling. Israel also carries out 18 air attacks (CBC Radio 1) On the matter of proportionality, Israel appears to surpass the Nazis who aimed for ten dead for one of their own. Is this not almost as sickening as the West's obsequiousness toward Israel?
    • By Scott Mayers
      BBC: Jersusalem is Israel's capital
      I commented on some thread last night of someone from the U.S. asking if Trump was all that bad for them. I tried to relate without prejudice. I assumed that much of the world's problems in communication/miscommunication deal with today's technology. However, today this announcement appears as though he may be setting up for some suicidal 'fuck you' before he possibly gets impeached. ?? 
      I'm a bit surprised no one else here even mentioned it yet. What do you guys think?
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...