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.
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.
What does that have to do with the argument? They’re pointing out that the government can restrict where you spend your money but the opposite is not true.
The government can restrict your actions - including where you choose to shop (or don’t shop) - based on your stated intent. That’s always been true. It’s the foundation for discrimination law - hiring and firing based on race, religion, or disability.
If you announce “I’m not hiring you because you’re unqualified” there’s no legal liability. If you announce “I’m not hiring you because you’re black”, that invokes legal liability. Arkansas is extending this line of reasoning to nation-of-origin. You cannot go into a store and say “I’m explicitly refusing to buy Israeli wine”. You cannot operate an investment bank or office that declares “We are explicitly boycotting every business of Israeli origin”. It’s now classified as a form of discrimination and one in which the state DA’s office has a zealous desire to prosecute.
Hiring is a different analogy that still doesnt really fit the situation well. If I work at Acme Corp and get quotes for materials from a company in Israel and one in Brazil and decide to go with Brazil because I dont agree with supporting genocide, how can the government compel me to instead purchase supplies from Israel? Beyond the whole ideological aspect of “free markets” and whether Republicans are major hypocrites or not, what legal mechanism is there for the government to require you to purchase generic items from a specific company solely based on the nation that company is located in regardless of price, quality, volume, etc? There’s zero chance there’s legitimate legal footing for this.
how can the government compel me to instead purchase supplies from Israel?
Just off the top, they can deny you future business with the state or federal government in turn. If you’re a company whose lifeblood is government contracts - Microsoft or Amazon being a couple of big classic examples, although any run-of-the-mill mid-sized construction company would also qualify - then this would be a death sentence.
But more broadly they can issue fines, sue for civil judgement and penalty, prosecute members of the company under whatever statues they’ve erected, or just send in the police/sheriff/national guard to shake you down without ever actually getting the DAs involved.
There’s zero chance there’s legitimate legal footing for this.
The law is what the courts say it is. And we’ve stacked our benches with right-wing assholes. In Arkansas, at least, I doubt you’ll have trouble finding a state supreme court willing to rule in favor of the government.
Unless you have a fiduciary responsibility to investors, which can still be satisfied if you think that business relationship would harm the businesses reputation, there’s nothing anyone can do to force you.
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.
A big joint labeled “AIPAC” that got passed to them in a Federalist Society blunt rotation.
You absolutely can and we routinely do. Just look at the embargo of Cuba, for instance.
You can ban imports, you cannot dictate that I buy products from fucking Walmart.
And yet… I would’t bat an eye if I saw a new executive order tomorrow requiring that.
Executive orders aren’t worth shit to citizens. All he can do is order the executive branch around.
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.
What does that have to do with the argument? They’re pointing out that the government can restrict where you spend your money but the opposite is not true.
The government can restrict your actions - including where you choose to shop (or don’t shop) - based on your stated intent. That’s always been true. It’s the foundation for discrimination law - hiring and firing based on race, religion, or disability.
If you announce “I’m not hiring you because you’re unqualified” there’s no legal liability. If you announce “I’m not hiring you because you’re black”, that invokes legal liability. Arkansas is extending this line of reasoning to nation-of-origin. You cannot go into a store and say “I’m explicitly refusing to buy Israeli wine”. You cannot operate an investment bank or office that declares “We are explicitly boycotting every business of Israeli origin”. It’s now classified as a form of discrimination and one in which the state DA’s office has a zealous desire to prosecute.
Hiring is a different analogy that still doesnt really fit the situation well. If I work at Acme Corp and get quotes for materials from a company in Israel and one in Brazil and decide to go with Brazil because I dont agree with supporting genocide, how can the government compel me to instead purchase supplies from Israel? Beyond the whole ideological aspect of “free markets” and whether Republicans are major hypocrites or not, what legal mechanism is there for the government to require you to purchase generic items from a specific company solely based on the nation that company is located in regardless of price, quality, volume, etc? There’s zero chance there’s legitimate legal footing for this.
Just off the top, they can deny you future business with the state or federal government in turn. If you’re a company whose lifeblood is government contracts - Microsoft or Amazon being a couple of big classic examples, although any run-of-the-mill mid-sized construction company would also qualify - then this would be a death sentence.
But more broadly they can issue fines, sue for civil judgement and penalty, prosecute members of the company under whatever statues they’ve erected, or just send in the police/sheriff/national guard to shake you down without ever actually getting the DAs involved.
The law is what the courts say it is. And we’ve stacked our benches with right-wing assholes. In Arkansas, at least, I doubt you’ll have trouble finding a state supreme court willing to rule in favor of the government.
Unless you have a fiduciary responsibility to investors, which can still be satisfied if you think that business relationship would harm the businesses reputation, there’s nothing anyone can do to force you.
*States
Fixed it for you. You are welcome.
Minnesota is in the same appeals circuit and deserves better.
i really really wish that were true. were it, i’d have the medicines i need.
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.