For or against anti-BDS laws?

[Standing Wolf]

This has notw taken an interesting turn.

In a way, it resembles a couple of other situations. One, a group of folks advocating for keeping a Confederate monument, detailing their reasons for wanting to do so, accused of being racists...and two, a group listing their reasons for disliking and distrusting Donald Trump, having those reasons ignored and being told that they suffer from something called TDS. In all cases, the stated reasons for holding a certain position are being totally ignored or discounted in favor of one side labeling the other with a derogatory name.

[Helena]

There is nothing detrimental to our liberties in this contract condition.

You are free to be as anti-Semitic as you wish. If you are a business you will receive no State contracts. Which do you want more, to destroy Israel or to do business?

If we want to end every contract condition that requires a business to confirm they are not discriminating I am willing to listen.

It is very surprising to me that you and some others are collectivist and fascist. I bet it's going to be quite the surprise to you, as well.

There is a military maxim about weaponry and technology: Give it 15 years, give or take, and the enemy will have it within their power to use it on you.

I hope you and others see truth sooner rather than later.

[Standing Wolf]

It is very surprising to me that you and some others are collectivist and fascist. I bet it's going to be quite the surprise to you, as well.

There is a military maxim about weaponry and technology: Give it 15 years, give or take, and the enemy will have it within their power to use it on you.

I hope you and others see truth sooner rather than later.

Good point. Were the courts to find - as unlikely as it may seem now - that it is legal to discriminate in the awarding of government contracts on the basis of whether or not a private entity has chosen to boycott or forgo doing business with Israel, that would establish a precedent to allow any government to deal similarly with a company that refused to do business with Iran or North Korea or any other country on the planet, regardless of what their government had done. Israel may be an acceptable special case to some, at this point in time - but alliances do shift, and the power that was in the hands of one will someday be in the hands of another.

As for the suggestion of some that the anti-BDS laws are no different than the laws that require companies doing business with the government from discriminating against racial, ethnic, religious or sexual minorities, those other laws are premised on the fact that they protect the rights to equal access and fair treatment of American citizens by incentivizing businesses not to discriminate against them. What American citizens are disadvantaged or discriminated against by the BDS movement?

[donttread]

No it's true, we can boycott our own country, any others but they want it against the law to boycott Israel. The right screams against the left while they support this. Taking free speech away a little at a time.

I think it's more like the state won't do business with those who boycott Israel

[Helena]

See where this leads? Small steps and each step was so small... "Oh, don't worry about it, they said.. it's only for state contractors, they said. Nothing to worry about. It's fine. Don't be an alarmist. It's not suppressing free speech., it's not a priority, No big deal."

http://archive.is/IoIX0

In May 2018, the state of South Carolina passed a bill lawmakers said was aimed at fighting anti-Semitism in the state's public school system. But many critics were instead alarmed: Rather than simply cracking down on speech critical of Jewish people, the law instead banned criticism of the state of Israel. For example, the bill banned teachers and students from bringing up Israeli human-rights violations or from "singling out" Israel for criticism or "denying Israel the right to exist." When a South Carolina congressman then tried to file a similar law at the federal level, the American Civil Liberties Union labeled that bill an "attack on free speech" that would "silence criticism of Israel that is protected by the First Amendment."
Well, yesterday a South Florida lawmaker filed a virtually identical bill and reignited the debate. If enacted, the measure from Palm Beach County Rep. Mike Caruso, a Republican, would ban both obvious and abhorrent cases of anti-Semitism (denying the Holocaust, calling for attacks on Jewish people, etc.) and criticism of the Israeli state. The bill would force all public institutions in Florida, from kindergarten through public university, to "take into consideration anti-Semitism when determining if a practice or act was discrimination on the basis of religion."

http://archive.is/IoIX0

I have a problem with the the phrasing here. "Rather than simply cracking down on speech critical of Jewish people, the law instead"... No, that's not right. The law shouldn't be cracking down on free speech, PERIOD. No laws of this nature should have ever been allowed to pass muster in this country. But people won't speak up. And they do these things steadily and stealthily in small increments, but building and building to a large monstrosity.
https://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
They Thought They Were Free
The Germans, 1933-45
Milton Mayer

In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it.

In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

"You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

"Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). ... You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

It is happening, it is happening all over this country, state by state. So, you might say to yourself, yeah, but this is what we're trying to avoid, this horrible holocaust situation again, so by banning criticisms and conversations about Jews, we can prevent it.
No. That is DANGEROUS THINKING! Free speech is supposed to remain free speech, free from fear of a totalitarian state dragging you off for wrongthink, or what someone perceives as wrongthink. And it turns into malicious little informants who you may have slighted or unintentionally embarrassed at some point; They'll inform (lie) to "authorities" and it will be quite the thrilling reward for them. To be patted on the back like the good boys they are for being so vigilant for the state.

And now, a word from Jordan Peterson:
Stick with him, even if you're utterly confused as to how he ties his trails back to the fundamental issue of free speech. It may resonate with some.

[zachroidott]

Make better arguments. If you can.

It is okay to admit you have no better arguments.

Do you realize an off the wall statement is not an argument?

^^off-the-wall

[MisterVeritis]

See where this leads? Small steps and each step was so small... "Oh, don't worry about it, they said.. it's only for state contractors, they said. Nothing to worry about. It's fine. Don't be an alarmist. It's not suppressing free speech., it's not a priority, No big deal."

You can be as antisemitic as you like. I suppose.

[MisterVeritis]

Make better arguments. If you can.

It is okay to admit you have no better arguments.

Do you realize an off the wall statement is not an argument?

^^off-the-wall

You are very late to the party. Don't be as disappointing here as you were in our last exchange.

[Helena]

You can be as antisemitic as you like. I suppose.

That's your takeaway? That's the brilliant conclusion you came to after considering my whole post? That it's about anti-Semitism?

You're fine with the erosion and erasure of free speech?

[MisterVeritis]

That's your takeaway? That's the brilliant conclusion you came to after considering my whole post? That it's about anti-Semitism?

You're fine with the erosion and erasure of free speech?

It was not about freedom of speech.

If you want to be an anti-semite don't expect to receive government contracts.