• roofuskit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    You should know, that’s unconstitutional.

    Edit: what the fuck is this appeals court smoking? “Money is speech… no not like that.” So I guess every political donation that is not known to the public is also not free speech?

    You cannot dictate what a business or individual spends its money on or why. Burn this fucking state to the ground and start over.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      what the fuck is this appeals court smoking?

      A big joint labeled “AIPAC” that got passed to them in a Federalist Society blunt rotation.

      You cannot dictate what a business or individual spends its money on or why.

      You absolutely can and we routinely do. Just look at the embargo of Cuba, for instance.

        • chillpanzee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          And yet… I would’t bat an eye if I saw a new executive order tomorrow requiring that.

          • roofuskit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            Executive orders aren’t worth shit to citizens. All he can do is order the executive branch around.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          Where do you think Walmart gets its merch? You’re just pointing to different steps in the supply chain.

          The anti-BDS rules are, functionally speaking, not even bans on how you engage with the economy. They’re bans on your speech. You can go to Walmart or not. You can buy things or not. What you can’t do is step outside the store and announce “I didn’t purchase a Sodastream specifically because it would profit Israel”.

          And, again, going back to Morse v. Frederick and Harisiades v. Shaughnessy and United States v. O’Brien all lay out instances in which the US government can restrict speech. This is just the latest encroachment.

      • roofuskit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Again, controlling imports is a long established power. The government cannot force you to buy from a specific business.

        Even if, for instance, a state requires that liquor be purchased at a state store, THEY CANNOT FORCE YOU YO BUY THINGS THERE.

  • Strider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 days ago

    I’m not even American but how would you even prove that? (eg. Not buying certain products…?)

    • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Don’t put words in the mouth of the law. We have something similar in TX. If you are a government employee you have to agree not to “boycott Israel”. It doesn’t say boycott Israeli products or companies. It says “boycott Israel” itself, so you just can’t say that you’ll never travel there.

      • Strider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Why me? I reached to the (it seems wrongly worded) news.

        Try to be a bit more open minded to foreigners’ questions please.

        • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          It wasn’t meant as a slight to you. It was more a comment on how they worded the law.

          Kind of like how the news will turn trumps ramblings into coherent thoughts. We shouldn’t modify the language of poorly written laws to make sense of them. That hurts the people governed by them.

  • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    It’s not just Arkansas, most states have antiBDS laws in place. Many of them do not allow contracting with the state, state employment, or receiving state disaster assistance if you hold BDS ideology. Stars in purple have active antiBDS laws in place

  • TragicNotCute@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    5 days ago

    The headline you’ve written is factually inaccurate. They prevent the state from doing business with contractors who boycott Israel. It’s a very different thing. The state of Texas also prohibits its state employees from doing the same.

    • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 days ago

      Texas takes it several steps further. Victims of Hurricane Harvey had to sign antiBDS statements. Flooding a few months ago added a disclaimer that you recognize the right for Israel to exist

  • mnhs1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    They’d have to shoot me and force my dead body to eat anything touched by an Israeli. Fuck Arkansas.

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      What’s wrong with my Israeli friend who moved out of Israel 15 years ago and attends pro-Palestine protests?

      • mnhs1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        He’s not your Israeli friend then. He’s the same from whichever country you came from. He’s okay.