How do you ban a boycott? Forced consumption?
this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
39 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10372 readers
63 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
A lot of things in legal-world can actually work this way. Intent matters. So if you're distributing a document that calls for boycotting Israel, that can be illegal (I mean... arguably, I guess, under this awful law). If you're in charge of a purchasing agency, and you suddenly drop all your Israel-aligned contracts, that can be illegal. If you're denying mortgages to people of a certain color, that can be illegal.
No one can stop you from the individual actions, but if someone can prove that it was part of a coordinated effort to achieve one particular goal (which it kind of has to be coordinated in order to achieve any impact) then it can be illegal.
If your soda machine is not a Sodastream, you’re under suspicion.
The first of those should fail under free speech, so long as it doesn't call for overt harm the proposal of a boycott would be similar to arguing against a political candidate.
The second would be difficult to argue unless the company had a formal procurement process that mandated bids and specific rules it could be said they went against.
The last is more classic racist denial and could certainly be prosecuted, but somewhat turns the tables in that the provider is refusing service to a potential client.
I forget the outcome of the 'gay wedding cakes' case from a while back, but the general argument is that while a vendor should serve all valid customers equally, a client need not give equal chance to a vendor who they disagree with the policies of.
should fail
I'm going to to stop you right there. I do actually agree with you 100%, I'm just saying that "no one can prove I didn't do this action for X innocent reason" falls apart in how the actual law is actually applied (and regardless of whether the law is being applied for a reasonable reason in the first place, which of course this one is not).
that case specifically did not ultimately have broad implications, but similar cases largely affirmed that vendors can refuse clients based on speech they disagree with. however generally these cases have simply danced around the issue. The general implication seems to be you can't simply discriminate against people based on their identity, but you can refuse to associate with speech content which you disagree with. this isnt set in stone exactly but it seems like this:
You cant refuse to make cakes for black people, but you can refuse to make cakes which say "BLM", or in the other direction, refuse to make maga cakes, or cakes with swastikas. Can you refuse to cater for say, the rnc? i would imagine so, but it technically isnt addressed that i saw. Can you refuse to cater for a known nazi? Maybe? Probably not technically just by them being a nazi.
When a shitbag like MTG opposes your bill for the right reasons, you’re completely checked out from reality. Fuck zionists in their stupid asses.
I don't think it is for the right reasons. Whatever she says, I think she is opposing it because she hates Jews, not because she cares about Palestine or free speech. For example I suspect that making it illegal to boycott Russia, she'd be all for.
The original legislation prohibits boycotting a country friendly to the US based on an “agreement with, a requirement of, or a request from or on behalf” of another nation. It imposes penalties of up to $1m and 20 years in prison for violations.
Okay is it me or is this already really fucked up?
They just need to carve out a religious exemption.