this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
599 points (98.2% liked)

politics

21724 readers
3645 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Jesus, this guy gets dumber and more dementia addled by the day.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Bad news, there's precedent for making boycotts illegal, though that's based on a deliberate misreading of hate speech laws

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I was actually reading this wikipedia page earlier after posting and it seemed like these Anti-BDS laws only apply to government offices and government contractors

Most anti-BDS laws have taken one of two forms: contract-focused laws requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel; and investment-focused laws, mandating public investment funds to avoid entities boycotting Israel.

A broad law mandating that the public at large can't not buy certain products, or can't ask others to do the same would be unenforceable I would think -- though I'm not going to doubt the Roberts Court ability to find some way to make something that absurd law if asked by their king...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Maybe you should read the news instead of wikipedia? Maybe you should check reality instead of what's supposedly "legal"?

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181218-texas-teacher-fired-for-refusing-to-sign-anti-bds-oath/

It's been decades of these attacks and they've laid the foundation for the expansions that we're seeing now.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

Uh same to you? Did you check up on how that case from 2018 ended? She won and they changed the law, and the latest I found with a quick search is that CAIR was appealing to get Texas to pay her the compensation she was owed from the original trial but denied because since the state changed the law Texas was arguing they no longer had to pay the original amount awarded (typical Texas, big fuck you to Ken Paxton)

The original law in Texas that got Bahia Amawi fired was amended in 2019 to avoid targeting individuals and only apply to companies applying or bidding for contracts greater than $100,000.

(WASHINGTON, DC, 4/5/2022) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, argued yesterday before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of Bahia Amawi, defending an Austin, Texas, federal court’s decision to award Amawi more than $140,000 for costs and attorney fees after winning her landmark First Amendment victory against the State of Texas, which found Texas’s Anti-BDS law unconstitutional.

Did you have another example?