Hey big shoutout to all the Redditors and Lemmy guys who told me that we can have no restrictions on free speech because if we restrict Nazis they will restrict us if they ever gain power.
Welp, here ya go…like I told you…and many of you blocked and/or banned me for saying it. Ironic.
i felt like the trolls on reddits are just RU stoking anger and division.
You’ll never easily get through to those people. They hold idealism over material reality in many cases.
The best way I’ve found to get even some of them to at least stop and think for a minute is to ask if preventing people from doing things like:
- Screaming slurs next to a preschool
- Publishing deliberately false information to ruin someone’s reputation
- Doxxing someone who was mean to you
…is justified. If they say yes, then maybe unlimited free speech isn’t perfect, and restricting Nazis could be justified. If they say no, then you’ll know they’re a lost cause.
Is the problem the speech or the people tbat speak it?
Great question. Intention matters, so many countries focus on speech that can only be malicious, like incitement to violence in the UK or Nazi salutes in Germany.
If you make the 1st Amendment illegal, the rest of the Constitution cannot be far behind.
if? people have already been blackbagged for their speech. this is just encoding something already in effect.
How tf can u ban a boycott, how is that even possible let alone provable 🤦 Politics aside if I js don’t like a brand that endorses or has ties to Israel would I then be subject to charges. How u trynna force people to buy from certain companies, what if I was bruk, would I be breaking the law? 🤡
Excuse me I saw you drinking flat water where is your soda stream ice this one get this one
it will probably use to target protestors, and groups criticial of israel.
This will probably be used to target protestors and organizers of political movements.
Yeah, the boycott itself can’t reasonably be prosecuted. But it can be used to suppress discussion (e.g. organization, coordination) of said boycott.
Is that legal? It doesn’t sound legal. I’m sure they could make it illegal for US government agencies to boycott Israel because that’s at least partially a foreign policy decision, but private businesses? What are they gonna do, force you to buy Israeli goods?
narrator: it didn’t sound legal because it wasn’t.
Incremental steps into the police state.
We are in a police state. This is more.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And the USSC has definitely ruled that money is equivalent to speech. So boycott activity is logically covered under this Amendment.
If this law passes, a lot of people are going to have a rough year or two until they can get a case all the way to the Supreme Court.
Because republicans care so much about laws they don’t agree with.
Or parts of the religions they thump on about.
How do I boycott Israel in the first place? Not booking my next vacation there? Do I get 20 years in prison for that?
It seems like theatre. How will you ever prove that I chose Burger King over McDonalds for political reasons?
I don’t eat meat. BK has Impossible burgers and McD’s doesn’t. Of course they’ve been coming after synthetic meat too in some places. They’re throwing a fit because a single-digit % of the population had the audacity to opt out of eating meat derived from animals.
I am not vegan or vegetarian, but I still prefer Impossible burgers (and Impossible chicken patties) and Beyond Steak bites. Not only does it at least significantly reduce my meat consumption, it is generally better than the real meat, since it doesn’t have any weird bits and is lower in bad cholesterol. Also, it makes it so the meat I do eat can be sourced more ethically (buying direct from the rancher, hunting and fishing my own for subsistence, getting free range eggs especially from locals) instead of getting the final product and just ignoring what torture went into it.
https://bdsmovement.net/Act-Now-Against-These-Companies-Profiting-From-Genocide
Whatever the legal status of officially boycotting Isreal, there’s still no law against just incidentally not doing business with the companies.
Before someone says they can’t avoid some of these: OK, then boycott the other ones.
Whatever sand you have to throw, throw it in the gears of genocide. Don’t just do nothing.
The Constitution says there’s also no law against actively and loudly not doing business with the companies
They make a surprising amount of things. I noticed a woodworking tool I have was made in Israel. Never expected that.
I have a plastic table I use for woodworking and general carpentry that I later found out might be made in Israel, the brand is Keter. I see they sell lots of outdoor storage solutions locally as well, will avoid that brand in the future. Out of interest, what did you buy so I know what to look out for?
Well, I can think of at least one famous Jewish carpenter.
Nailed it!
You can cross that one off your list
For now; it’ll be back in a few days.
A Bosch router bit
Man, that sucks. I have lots of Bosch tools, although my router stuff is mostly other brands. Thanks for the tip, will be on the lookout.
Wait you first blame us for not having free speach, because lying about the holocaust is illegal and now you ban boycotting Israel for engaging in a de facto genocide?
Didn’t CU rule that spending money is free speech? So isn’t compelling the spending of money compelling speech? Sounds straight up unconstitutional.(as if that fucking matters these days)
Rich people spending money is free speech.
Anti-genocide activists not spending money is terrorism.
AKA the usual.
Wait, doesn’t your argument support their bill?
They’re agreeing with you; they are suggesting that convincing people of what to do with their money is infringing on their “speech.”
My argument is that republicans are never consistent with their policies.
Spending isn’t free speech. The government cannot compell speech. This doesn’t not mean that the government can compell spending (I mean, it sorta can with taxes and fines, but it can’t compell spending to select businesses, markets or groups.)
I agree with you but you’re operating outside of case law and the entire sentiment is moot when arguing this particular case.
Is it saying it’s illegal to “convince”(therefore not the consumer) or it’s illegal to “participate” (meaning the consumer)
Well, we now know what death cult is behind the misery of literally the entire world.
Irony: Nazis are teaching the rest of us who hate Nazis how to hate the Jews
How tf do you ban boycotts? What if I just don’t want to consoom all the time?
Probably that is a threat for anyone spreading boycott movement in social media. So if you post McDonald are shit, bad for the health and do not consume them, you are ok. If you post don’t go to McDonald because they support a genocide by Israel, then it is another story.
And so the fear begins. Its a first step.
Sorry, we checked your recent bank transactions and you haven’t spent enough money at [Insert Corporation]. Please pay the $100 fine or serve one day at [Insert Corporation] as a free laborer.
How do you outlaw a boycott? It’s not an act, it’s a non-act. An absence of a purchase. How do you distinguish boycott from just not buying something you don’t want or need like any other item. Are we going to be required to put so much of our purchases toward Isreal now?
boycott
probably using to target groups that are protesting against israel.
Ding ding ding.
This is how they “lawfully” throw “dissidents” into the gulag.
Remember…most of what Hitler did was technically legal and above-board. Because they controlled the laws and shaped them as they saw fit.
the state wants to lock you up, figures out you don’t drink coca cola, You’re on trial for not buying Coca-Cola, or Nestle, or never tried Sabras hummus… straight to jail.
Wrong think will be punished
In other words, yes, precisely, they’re trying to sus out heretics. Don’t want to be mistaken for one? Perform the rites publicly, then.
You outlaw a boycott by using violence against those who promote the boycott. It’s not even anything new. Many states have already been doing this. Not to mention recent disappearances of anti-genocide activists.
Violence in service of hegemony is almost the entire purpose of the state.
Not just show your papers, show your recent Israel approved consumer good purchases!
Twitter sued advertisers who said they were boycotting it, and it worked somehow…
Gosh I wonder how the democrats will vote on this.
First you get people comfortable with defending genocide in another country, then they won’t be so resistant when you start doing it in your own country.
They were russian astroturfs
Who is they?
Law is summarized as:
Prohibited actions include (1) refusing to do business with companies organized under the laws of the boycotted country, if the refusal is pursuant to an agreement with or request from the country or IGO imposing the boycott; (2) refusing to employ any U.S. person on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin; and (3) furnishing information about whether someone is associated with charitable or fraternal organizations that support the boycotted country.
So it seems like if you decide not to buy a shirt made in Israel because the EU suggests a boycott, you go to jail and/or get fined. Clear violation of the 1st ammendment.
Practically, how do you prosecute someone for not voluntarily consuming a good or service?
I’m guessing you can’t but this might be aimed at businesses where there could be memos maybe?
It’s for harassment. Even shit lawsuits cost serious money to defend. Yeah, it’s unwinnable, but but the company defending might choose to not publicly side with a boycott or engage in one, which is the goal of these apocalypse seeking lunatics.
Also, lawyers don’t take civil rights cases anymore since the Supreme Court ruled the lawyer couldn’t get paid out of government reparations to the victims. Constitutional violation cases take time and a shit load of money to prosecute, something most victims don’t have.
There was a recent decision continuing this trend.
Even then that only works if they specificy that it’s because of a boycott, they could refuse to do business because the other guy smelt like a vegetarian omelette MRE which would be a valid reason. Anti-boycott laws are pretty universally easy to get around since a boycott functions on the principal of “I’m not buying that” which is pretty hard to prove the reasoning to.
fyi a vegetarian omlette is just an omlette, you’re probably thinking vegan, also yeah vegans are so annoying for randomly bringing it up huh
No, I know what I said. The naming scheme for military shit can be a bit weird but for the Vomellete in particular it’s because they were planning on bringing back a ham and eggs MRE equivalent. They never got to it since the Vomellete was so fucking bad, it was so bad that stevemre1989 gagged which is impressive since he has eaten food from the 1800s.
it didn’t really register that we’re talking about military rations
i was talking more generally, vegetarian diet includes eggs and milk, so idk what else they might have added, maybe some old unused cheese from the cheese caves
