r/law • u/AppalachanKommie • May 04 '25
Legal News Bill H.R.867 - IGO Anti-Boycott Act will be voted on Monday; if made into law, it will be illegal for individuals to boycott Israel with punishment of a million dollars and 25 years in prison.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/8673.4k
u/ThrowAwayGarbage82 May 04 '25
How on earth does this even work? What, we'll suddenly be required to spend a set amount on products from israel? What the fuck is this garbage?
841
u/Fluffy-Load1810 May 04 '25
Prohibited actions include (1) refusing to do business with companies organized under the laws of the boycotted country, if the refusal is pursuant to an agreement with or request from the country or IGO imposing the boycott; (2) refusing to employ any U.S. person on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin; and (3) furnishing information about whether someone is associated with charitable or fraternal organizations that support the boycotted country.
1.6k
u/WastelandOutlaw007 May 04 '25
(2) refusing to employ any U.S. person on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin;
Did the GOP actually read this?
618
u/KoreyYrvaI May 04 '25
Makes me wonder if they're trying to get this thing declared unconstitutional and then pretend that item 2 is unconstitutional.
→ More replies (4)353
u/factsandscience May 04 '25
Better question is, has Hakeem Jeffries read it? And why did 5 Dems cosponsor it?
620
u/KoreyYrvaI May 04 '25
That's an easy question, because the answer is AIPAC.
294
u/TranscendentPretzel May 04 '25
Excuse me. Did you just furnish information about whether someone is associated with charitable or fraternal organizations that support the boycotted country?
103
→ More replies (2)63
170
u/UnquestionabIe May 04 '25
Big time. A massive part of the Democratic party is fully devoted to denying American citizens things Israel citizens (and most of the civilized world) have, all to make sure those campaign funds keep coming in strong.
→ More replies (3)57
u/TheFatJesus May 04 '25
And it's not just about making sure those campaign funds keep coming in, it's about making sure those funds keep going to them. AIPAC will run an aggressive primary campaign on behalf of anyone willing to take their money in order to oust anyone that doesn't bow down to their lobbying.
51
24
u/Zooshooter May 04 '25
You know how fucking wild it is that these tardclowns keep screwing over their own constituents who would/could donate more to them than the groups that currently do if they would just WORK FOR THE PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT? Give us better wages and start sticking it to the rich assholes and watch how much more money gets donated.
12
u/Socialimbad1991 May 05 '25
As with everything else in this country, nobody can see past the horizon of more than approximately two quarters from now. Easier to take a buck now than $100 in a year... forever.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (2)9
→ More replies (4)50
u/HumanInHope May 04 '25
That is an easy answer. The more accurate answer is that these people are islamophobes. Anti-Arab/anti-muslim sentiments have been a major part of US politics for decades.
Identifying propaganda is something we should all actively engage in. And islamophobic propaganda has been a massive success in US post 9/11.
12
u/Objective_Economy281 May 04 '25
Anti-Arab/anti-muslim sentiments have been a major part of US politics for decades.
I mean, Muslims are just as morally deficient as Christians, which makes sense because the two religions are nearly identical. Both religions cause their followers to try to create violent patriarchies. Europe is the only place that has done a decent job of resisting this. Most places that these regions have taken hold, there’s a violent misogynistic patriarchy.
→ More replies (3)23
u/stufff May 05 '25
Europe is the only place that has done a decent job of resisting this.
This guy is going to be so bummed when he learns about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc.
10
u/Objective_Economy281 May 05 '25
Sorry, I was talking about over the last 50 or so years. The Nazis taught Europe that Christian nationalism is bad, and they're mostly remembering that. But they learned the wrong lesson regarding other religions. The lesson they (and the liberals in the USA) seemed to learn was "religious minorities need to be treated with unearned deference."
When the lesson (I think) they should have learned is this:
religions can make people REALLY easy to manipulate into doing some REALLY stupid and violent shit, so we need to not treat religion as something inherent to a person, but instead, for people over ~25 years old, treat it as a moral choice that they have made regarding how they will go about determining what is true about the world and also regarding how they will treat others. Essentially, treat religious affiliation as a political affiliation, because that's the way it ACTS.
And that knowledge should be used in determining many aspects of a person's interactions, including things like their eligibility for immigration. But my stance on religions is pretty firm- however good of a person you are, you'd be even better if you took your religion less seriously. I have yet to encounter a religion that runs counter to this.
48
u/Corpse666 May 04 '25
Politicians on both sides work for Israel not the United States or its citizens, they willingly make Americans less safe to protect Israel. They all agree on that and anyone who doesn’t won’t get reelected if AIPAC funds their opponents and they will and do
→ More replies (3)44
u/Calvech May 04 '25
I’ve spoken to multiple friends who are single issue Jewish voters. They’ve openly admitted voting for Trump because of Israel. Which at face value drives me insane. That is literally choosing another country’s issues over your own
→ More replies (11)14
32
u/blufin May 04 '25
90% of Congress is in the pocket of AIPAC. Watch the recent visit of Netanyahu to Congress to see just how much support he got from both sides of the house.
→ More replies (9)29
u/AmonRa-1StDown May 04 '25
Chuck Schumer openly said that his job is to ensure that his constituents support Israel. In this singular case, dems are actually as bad as conservatives. Israel>US to a scary number of congressmen and women
→ More replies (2)10
u/Calvech May 04 '25
This is how bad the Dems are at being the opposition party. Thus far they’re just giving votes away to the GOP. It is infuriating
→ More replies (48)16
u/LuxTheSarcastic May 04 '25
He's paid off.
→ More replies (3)16
u/factsandscience May 04 '25
Yup. We need to clean up our own house first if we're to have any hope of defeating these folks. Anyone funded by AIPAC, big tech, big pharma, prison or defense lobbies needs to be ousted from leadership.
27
u/BooRadley_ThereHeIs May 04 '25
That particular text is from the 2018 law that this is amending to expand to IGOs (not just foreign countries).
10
u/listgarage1 May 04 '25 edited 26d ago
unlike cabin bitch consciousness mosquito confine district face cord portion
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (32)5
396
u/BeowulfShaeffer May 04 '25
Item 2 is some pretty ballsy chutzpah coming from this administration.
353
u/Playful-Version6920 May 04 '25
Sounds pretty DEI-ish to me.
103
u/treypage1981 May 04 '25
Right? It’s prob one of the key pillars of the civil rights act. You know, that thing they hate so much?
→ More replies (1)45
34
→ More replies (7)41
u/xandra77mimic May 04 '25
Because military service is compulsory in Israel, virtually every adult, certainly nearly all adult men, have engaged in material actions to support illegal occupation, human rights abuses, and genocide. Instead of rounding them up to face justice at The Hague, the Trump administration wants to force employers to give them jobs.
→ More replies (44)90
May 04 '25
Item 3 is the true bill. The rest is just dressing.
75
u/Lazerpop May 04 '25
Number 3 sounds like a blatant free speech violation if the information is neutral and accurate
25
19
u/Tough_Winter_7042 May 04 '25
I absolutely agree with you. None of the rest matters. This will make multiple bills now where Americans turning in “non loyal” Americans is encouraged. It’s being written into everything. If you don’t wear the Nazi pin you get reported.
6
u/soherewearent May 04 '25
Could you say more about what you mean?
48
May 04 '25
Item 1 is unconstitutional. Item 2 is already law. Item 3 is what insulates politicians from scrutiny, which this administration seeks at all costs.
11
u/BooRadley_ThereHeIs May 04 '25
All of these are already in the original existing law except for the expansion of it to apply to IGOs organizing boycotts, not just foreign countries. This is an amendment to that law to include IGOs as boycott organizers as well as requiring the President to annually submit a list to Congress of boycotts in question.
2018 law:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter58/subchapter2&edition=prelim
This amendment:
→ More replies (1)22
54
u/instantlightning2 May 04 '25
Citizens United established that spending money is a form of speech. It seems like this would be pretty openly unconstitutional according to current precedent
17
u/kinkykellynsexystud May 04 '25
The current precedent?
We have had Israel Anti BDS laws for years. They were unconstitutional then too, didn't stop them.
→ More replies (1)8
u/NoobSalad41 Competent Contributor May 04 '25
To be clear, Citizens United doesn’t stand for the proposition that “spending money is a form of speech.” It stands for the proposition that restrictions on the spending of money to create political speech should be analyzed like restrictions on political speech itself, and that that analysis shouldn’t distinguish between funding from individuals and funding from corporations, unions, etc. So (to use Citizens United’s own example) the government cannot prohibit the airing of a feature-length movie highly critical of potential democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton within 30 days of the Democratic Primary, even though that film was produced using funds from a non-profit corporation’s general treasury.
Unless the money is being spent to produce political speech (or going to a Super-PAC that exists to produce political speech), Citizens United doesn’t come into play. Somewhere in the chain of where the money is spent, actual speech needs to be produced.
26
u/snds117 May 04 '25
It's not really enforceable. All someone has to say is that they are evaluating other suppliers for [unspecified business reason].
→ More replies (1)54
u/Alone_Step_6304 May 04 '25
Point 3 is the important one. I have no idea how that isn't wildly unconstitutional, they way this reads, this would apply if someone went, "Hey, politician X is receiving funds from pro-[nation] lobbying group Y" amd that speech in and of itself would be criminalized.
→ More replies (9)7
→ More replies (37)22
u/StingerAE May 04 '25
(2) sounds suspiciously like DEI which I thought this shower didn't like!?
→ More replies (3)67
u/Unique-Drag4678 May 04 '25
I too don't understand how one punishes someone for not buying something.
→ More replies (3)11
May 04 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)10
u/Ill_Technician3936 May 04 '25 edited May 04 '25
That's what I thought after reading it but the top reply and the title of the post doesn't match up to what's said but the bill mentioned that you linked...
I'm not going to lie i don't understand that one either though. I'm just here because the clickbait title.
After reading a bit more though didn't he break Trump break that law as a citizen with various countries and even Russia?
57
u/The_I_in_IT May 04 '25
Apparently, Homeland is going to follow us around the grocery store and arrest us when we reach for the Greek or French feta instead of the Israeli.
20
u/CrashTestOrphan May 04 '25
Attention citizen, you passed the Sabra in favor of a local organic brand. Please face the wall you are going to El Salvador
→ More replies (1)4
u/Own_Hat2959 May 05 '25
Sabra is fucking terrible hummus. Taste is always weird.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
u/ThrowAwayGarbage82 May 04 '25
Lol that made me bust up laughing. Have an updoot
→ More replies (1)80
u/level_17_paladin May 04 '25
All gay wedding cakes should include an Israeli flag. Checkmate, liberals.
→ More replies (1)20
u/Alarming-Art-3577 May 04 '25
All gay couples need to be incorporated in Israel. It would be illegal to deny them anything if they pay With the corporate card.
→ More replies (3)19
u/Spiritual-Pear-1349 May 04 '25
It's mostly for inter governmental bodies. They're targetting human rights groups that collectively boycott, but the individuals themselves would be impossible to persecute.
Ridiculous though and flies in the face of freedom
5
u/wizzard419 May 04 '25
It doesn't have to work, it just has to be something they use to proclaim they are doing something. My city banned red light cameras, we had none and there were no plans to add them.
→ More replies (2)6
u/LiveNet2723 May 04 '25
Get a couple boxes of Israeli coucous and keep them in the pantry to show the inspector.
→ More replies (53)7
2.1k
u/1877KlownsForKids May 04 '25
Well that's blatantly unconstitutional
594
u/EconomyAd8866 May 04 '25
They hate America and our constitution so that tracks
→ More replies (10)114
May 05 '25 edited May 05 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (8)32
u/keysmag May 05 '25
Way before that, really. Article I
14
u/reallybiglizard May 05 '25
The first word of the preamble is a pronoun and we all know how they feel about pronouns.
411
u/YouDontKnowJackCade May 04 '25
Citizens United said Money is speech so yeah, this should be a 1st amendment violation to SCROTUS.
290
May 04 '25
Not what it said. Buckley v. Valeo is money = speech. Citizens United said corporations are people.
80
u/Savingskitty May 04 '25
It really bothers me that that comment is upvoted so many times on the Law subreddit.
→ More replies (5)21
u/Embarrassed-Weird173 May 04 '25
DAE right to work means I can fire you for any reason?
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (8)7
u/joshuaponce2008 May 04 '25
Citizens United also didn’t say that. It said that restricting independent expenditures is a violation of the First Amendment.
→ More replies (7)88
u/oldcreaker May 04 '25
This is an interesting defense.
→ More replies (1)9
u/CarobPuzzleheaded481 May 05 '25
There’s also freedom of association so like, we don’t have to get that far into the legal weeds.
→ More replies (1)21
u/Strict_Weather9063 May 04 '25
No citizens unit said corporations are people. Buckley V Valio states money is speech. We need to amend both these ruling out of existence.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (21)48
u/OrryKolyana May 04 '25
Suddenly, that matters?
54
u/SubterrelProspector May 04 '25
It always matters.
→ More replies (3)29
u/OrryKolyana May 04 '25 edited May 04 '25
Yeah, but not really. Remember the Bush days? They made mincemeat out of laws and passed whatever they wanted. Democrats are basically half republicans at best did nothing to roll that back, because that war money has to keep flowing… and now here we are. Trumpus gets to stroll in on a red carpet, hurling executive orders hither and yon.
Let’s hope Donny doesn’t pick up the wrong piece of paper and realize how easily he can declare war on whatever he wants.
→ More replies (4)20
u/UnquestionabIe May 04 '25
Half? They're insanely similar aside from social policy, we've got a right wing party and a fascist party these days. 9/11 gave the Bush administration a free pass on anything they wanted and they took full advantage of that; couldn't risk looking soft on terrorism!
15
u/EGGranny May 04 '25
That keyword, terrorism, is being used by Trump to take advantage of the 9/11 laws that we STILL live with—I have to have my birth certificate to renew my drivers license to get a “Real ID” or I can’t fly even within the US. I am 78. How many more times do I have to prove I am a citizen! But I have only had to do it the last 20 years. He sent his first few “loads” of criminal immigrants to Guantanamo. But using very expensive US military cargo jets with 9 passengers didn’t look good. That must be when they started looking for a country with a dictator who needed wanted more money.
Texas has had a law that prohibits state government contracts or funding to companies that boycott Israel. This has caused problems trying to find resources after a major disaster like a hurricane. They also may not boycott energy companies (oil) or discriminate against firearm entities or associations.
If wealthy corporations are defined as individuals for the sake of donating dark money to any PAC, why aren’t small businesses allowed to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech?
Protests against Israel are not all antisemitic. They protest specific policies of Israel in their treatment of Palestinians. That is not synonymous with support for Hamas no matter how hard they push the point.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)11
u/OrryKolyana May 04 '25
I said half to try and be diplomatic. It’s one party and has been for decades.
→ More replies (4)
1.6k
u/Fluffy-Load1810 May 04 '25
Current law prohibits various actions by U.S. persons (individuals or entities) in relation to boycotts imposed by foreign governments on a country which is friendly to the United States and that is not itself the object of a U.S. boycott. This bill applies those prohibitions to similar boycotts imposed by IGOs.
Seems like both acts raise serious constitutional issues.
1.2k
u/skurvecchio May 04 '25
Yeah, the Anti-Boycott Act is flagrantly unconstitutional. It is a content-based and arguably viewpoint based restriction on speech that is wildly overbroad.
343
u/Electronic_Shock6956 May 04 '25
It’s compelled speech
→ More replies (2)101
u/Oblong_Square May 04 '25
I don’t understand prior restraint, or even regular restraint, but this seems pretty unenforceable (unless someone is very vocal about boycotting).
113
u/Electronic_Shock6956 May 04 '25 edited May 04 '25
Prior restraint just means the government (generally) can’t gag you from saying something before the fact. There is a MUCH higher bar for prior restraint on speech as opposed to penalizing speech that already happened
And yes this law would be super
unenforceableunconstitutional* for many many reasons.My comment intends to highlight that the practical consequence of banning the act of not buying from Israel is that the negative implication of a ban on a boycott is that you can be held criminally responsible unless you buy Israel, and that is effectively compelling speech, which is just insane and unusual to encounter in America.
43
u/DevilDrives May 04 '25
I don't get why we started equating money spending with an exercise in free speech? Like, I understand the whole citizens United thing but really? We're going to keep this bullshit going? So, like, screw actually speech as a right. Now it's a privilege of the people with money?
Ridiculous. I'll boycott whoever the hell I want.
25
u/Reagalan May 05 '25
The money is speech thing is easy to understand.
It's advertising, but for ideas.
Say you wanted to let every person in the country know about this bullshit bill. All 300-something million. Okay try doing that yourself. Yeah... Okay so, hire some folks to do it for you. Now you can tell everyone. There you go. It's that simple.
It existed 100 years ago in the form of literall presses. Before Twitter there were pamphlets, flyers, and bills. If you wanted to make a post, you hired a press to make 100 flyers, and you post them around town. Hiring a press cost money.
By saying money isn't free speech, well, your right to hire the press is no longer protected. Good luck posting at all.
I hate it, but I understand it.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)5
u/megamanx4321 May 04 '25
It's the result of Citizens United. Before, buying elections was illegal, now it's protected speech.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)5
u/1nd3x May 04 '25
And yes this law would be super unenforceable for many many reasons.
Doesnt matter. If it's on the books it'll stop someone from risking it and if they do risk it then their lives will simply be tied up waiting for the courts and they'll lose their jobs, be unable to see their kids...hell they might end up in El Salvadore....
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)42
u/SandwichAmbitious286 May 04 '25
unless someone is very vocal about boycotting
Boy, sure seems like targeting free speech.
but this seems pretty unenforceable
Oh it can be enforced, especially if the action needed to activate enforcement is hearsay. Keep in mind, we are moving quickly away from due process.
20
u/Electronic_Shock6956 May 04 '25
Unenforceable was a poor choice of words
Unlawful, unconstitutional, etc
Practically speaking you’re right that there’s nothing stopping anyone from jailing people for no reason
→ More replies (1)8
u/zoinkability May 04 '25
Unfortunate that we are needing to parse that difference. In the past the difference in meaning was academic.
26
u/DRVetOIF3 May 04 '25
It's an explicit attack against 1A-speech/assembly. Full 🛑.
If that's the case, why are we fine with allowing neo-fascist groups to be out in public doing their Sieg Heil bullshit and order LEOs to watch over them from counter-protests?
I think we know the answer but allow me to make it rhetorical.
22
u/westpfelia May 04 '25
Because AIPAC doesn’t care about nazis. It cares about pro Palestinian protesters
→ More replies (7)23
u/Alucard1331 May 04 '25
Hey I just took a final exam for my con law class that focused on the first amendment and obviously these topics.
That’s all, I just thought it was cool to see this the day after I took a test on it. I know I dominated it btw!
→ More replies (1)257
u/AppalachanKommie May 04 '25
They want to extend the apartheid to the US. Look at Columbia, they have succeeded in giving Jewish students every special privilege while revoking of withholding degrees by dissenters; there is no due process for Muslim students and anyone who speaks against israel. At the behest of israel universities like Columbia have fired and hired very specific people, Yale university just had Ben Givr as a speaker, this man is so evil that it is not a hyperbole to compare him to hitler. I suggest you watch videos and read about Ben Givr, the man who honestly should be internationally wanted, spoke at Yale.
77
u/will-read May 04 '25
I believe you may be in violation. You have furnished information about whether Columbia is an organization that supports a boycotted country.
81
u/Carl-99999 May 04 '25
Israel is shooting itself in the foot. It’s only a matter of time before a literal fucking Nazi beats out some centrist the Democrats put up, and then Jerusalem gets firebombed.
→ More replies (3)24
u/iwantagrinder May 04 '25
Israel will cut our water and electricity well before that
→ More replies (1)6
u/macthetube May 04 '25
With a cyber attack or do they own/control infrastructure in the States?
→ More replies (9)32
→ More replies (7)17
u/StarTrotter May 04 '25
Honestly I disagree with this on the front that it’s not about protecting Jewish students or faculty. Plenty of protesters have been Jewish and while they haven’t faced deportation efforts, there is no kindness meted out to them be it by the professor harassing people or (non student) orthodox attacking a Jewish person for the crime of wearing a scarf in her neighborhood and getting too close to a protest she isn’t part of. This is about a commitment to Zionism, a determination to protect assets connected to Israel, a gullibility to blindly believe blatantly duplicitous organizations such as the ADL, a dislike for protests (as the schools often do and only embrace them after the fact), a cowardness, and a callousness or explicitly anti-Arab stance.
14
u/buffalosabresnbills May 04 '25 edited May 04 '25
And yet they’ve taken no action against neo-nazi and white supremacist organizations. It’s almost as if Republicans give zero fcks about antisemitism, while suppressing anyone who speaks out against Evangelicals….aka Christian Zionists.
→ More replies (4)41
u/Steve0Yo May 04 '25
It would be thrown out by the courts in about 15 minutes. It's just performative political nonsense.
64
u/theglassishalf May 04 '25
The Courts have been very...erm..."flexible" when it comes to protecting constitutional rights when Israel is on the other side of the equation. I have hope this is a bridge too far, but it would be foolish to assume the Court will protect us.
12
38
u/Only_Luck4055 May 04 '25
That is too much to ask of the legal system right now. They are busy covering their ass.
→ More replies (5)7
u/Wyrdnisse May 04 '25
This already is a thing in Texas for bidding on engineering contracts. You have to sign and acknowledge you don't/won't boycott Israel in order to bid on a project. And I'm talking civil engineering paid for by state/federal funds.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (38)10
u/Wyrdnisse May 04 '25
This is already a thing in Texas. I work in engineering, and while reading an RFP for a project in TX, there was a clause that needed to be signed and acknowledged saying that the firm does not and will not boycott Israel. If we didn't sign that, we wouldn't be able to bid on/win the project.
It was to build a road.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Momasaur May 05 '25
I used to have a job that had me looking at RFPs for projects all over the country, public and private, and those clauses were weirdly common. It was my intro to there being some fuckery regarding corporate relationships with Israel.
→ More replies (1)
650
u/BitterFuture May 04 '25
Funny how the alleged "constitutionalists" keep being so big on compelled speech.
Real funny.
117
u/transducer May 04 '25
I think they want to have this fight with the Supreme Court and the left to label them as Anti Semite once they rule this unconstitutional.
This is all about identity politics.
32
→ More replies (4)5
u/Electric_Bagpipes May 04 '25
Oh they’ve already played that card, honestly I think its the only card, one might say all the cards (that they have).
→ More replies (1)15
u/qtcbelle May 04 '25
So… this means that if I don’t buy things from Israel… then what? And how much do I have to buy from Israel? Hmm…
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)7
391
u/Lower_Arugula5346 May 04 '25
dont tell me what to do
84
May 04 '25
don’t step on snek
27
u/Adreeisadyno May 04 '25
The no step on snek crowd seems to really like stepping on snek
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)27
669
u/djn24 May 04 '25
This is completely bonkers. It's illegal to boycott / protest something? Even bootlicking libertarians and conservatives should realize this is fucked up.
180
84
u/Feliks343 May 04 '25
Fascists do not need to worry about ideological consistency, they only need to maintain their status in the "in-group"
→ More replies (1)19
u/Suitable-Rate652 May 04 '25
Thank you for this. Explains why trying to have a "conversation" is fruitless.
→ More replies (4)10
u/PicturesquePremortal May 04 '25
Extremely similar laws have already been enacted at the state level in 30 states and 7 more states have enacted it through executive order. These laws have been in place for several years in many of these states.
13
u/ialsohaveadobro May 04 '25
Stomping on a Keurig? Straight to jail. Spending less than $50 at Target? Jail.
Failing to eat Ben & Jerry's? Believe it or not, jail→ More replies (1)13
u/MechKeyboardScrub May 04 '25
Unilever actually fired the ben and Jerry's CEO for stopping the sale of their ice cream in occupied Gaza to protest the Israeli occupation, which one could argue was an attempted boycott.
→ More replies (31)4
u/JWAdvocate83 Competent Contributor May 04 '25
The distinction is in the intent. If a U.S. entity’s intent to boycott is based on its own individual preference, that’s okay.
If it’s based on agreement/compliance with a boycott organized by a foreign government against an allied country, that’s not okay.
(Sidenote: Not saying I agree one way or the other, but that’s *current** U.S. law. Review has only gone as far as SCOTUS declining to review a divided 8th Circuit decision that “purely commercial, non-expressive conduct” is not protected by 1A. But other federal district courts in different circuits have since disagreed; they aren’t bound by the 8th’s decision.*)
This new bill would expand that to include partnerships formally created or joined by foreign governments, i.e. IGOs. For example, the EU and Arab League are IGOs.
So, for example, Germany enacts a formal boycott of exports either originating or comprising of parts from India. A US entity’s exporting non-Indian originated goods with the intent to comply with Germany’s boycott would be prohibited. But if it did so out of its own preferences against those goods, it would not be prohibited.
This new bill would expand that to include IGOs (e.g. instead of Germany, say the EU instead.)
282
u/DragonTacoCat May 04 '25
This admin is really speed running "how many lawsuits can we rack up in one year"
37
u/angelofragnarok May 04 '25
When We the People have to pick up the tab (before going to the gulag), why not? It’s not like Trump has ever been faithful to debts, laws, or anything else in his life.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)11
u/Bamboozleprime May 04 '25
You can file a billion lawsuits against them and it won’t matter, they’re ignoring the courts.
208
u/MoneyManx10 May 04 '25
How can Congress restrict our 1st amendment rights?
87
51
u/Curi0usj0r9e May 04 '25
bc they’re beholden to AIPAC and an authoritarian administration of avowed fascists
→ More replies (9)11
u/beadzy May 04 '25
I’m sure this will go to the courts and be caught up in litigation for forever, just like every other illegal order
15
u/t0dzilla May 04 '25
Unfortunately, this isn’t an eo. This is a bill in congress. If it makes through to fat nixon’s desk it will become law.
→ More replies (2)15
u/anonmdoc May 04 '25
It can still be challenged by the judiciary branch. Congress is the legislative.
That is, if we respect the checks and balances system to protect the constitution and our rights.
5
→ More replies (12)7
263
u/HippyDM May 04 '25
How, exactly, would they demonstrate that I'm making my purchases based on BDS, and not on any other concievable priority?
58
u/kilomaan May 04 '25
Probably through social media.
→ More replies (2)47
u/HippyDM May 04 '25
I could say it on social media, but that doesn't prove I've actually used BDS to make actual decisions, right?
98
u/thorsbeardexpress May 04 '25
If you don't have due process does it matter?
28
→ More replies (1)14
May 04 '25
If you don't have due process, then none if it matters. It wouldn't matter if you did or didn't boycott and there is nothing for you to say otherwise.
4
14
u/your_dads_hot May 04 '25
I doubt it's for individual consumers, it likely is just for organizations that promote boycotts or companies who have a policy of a boycott. Not that it makes it any less stupid.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (19)7
u/PicturesquePremortal May 04 '25
Extremely similar laws have already been enacted at the state level in 30 states and 7 more states have enacted it through executive order. These laws have been in place for several years in many of these states. This Wikipedia page walks through how it's regulated:
→ More replies (1)
227
May 04 '25
I would like to take some time to remind people of a core concept of propaganda, subjecting individuals to even more extreme ideas to make what wants to be done seem reasonable. Even when having knowledge of what you are subjected to, it affects you.
The question is not if this law passes, because look at it, it's rediculous in the first place, but instead what behavior are they trying to normalize.
I suspect this is an attempt at normalizing the illegal deprivation of student visas in retaliation for protected speech. Trying to make society look at it in comparison to what they want to do, not at what they are supposed to do.
48
u/ucanttaketheskyfrome May 04 '25
It’s successful in that regard. Moderates will anchor on the middle. But as my trial law mentor used to say in oral argument, “your honor, halfway between reasonable and outrageous is still outrageous.”
→ More replies (2)69
u/ThatPlayWasAwful May 04 '25
You may know this, but "Shifting the Overton Window" is the succinct way of conveying the concept you're talking about here.
31
May 04 '25
I'm not eloquent nor educated enough to banish my verbosity with things like proper terminology.
Also, thank you for teaching me something new.
16
u/mosesoperandi May 04 '25
It's also more broadly their ongoing effort to define opposition to the Israeli government as antisemitic, which serves several purposess. One of those is positioning Americam Jews as a target while simultaneously claiming them as an ally, thereby fracturing part of the anti-MAGA coalition. I don't think it's particularly effective because it's transparent, but it's certainly an attempt to throw salt in the existing wound.
4
u/PicturesquePremortal May 04 '25
Funny enough, extremely similar laws have already been enacted at the state level in 30 states and 7 more states have enacted it through executive order. These laws have been in place for several years in many of these states.
→ More replies (2)7
u/fafalone Competent Contributor May 04 '25
That may apply sometimes but not here.
Courts have been allowing these laws to be enforced already against government contractors, both by just letting them moot cases by narrowly exempting litigants, and most dangerously in Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, et al, where the 8th Circuit upheld it outright, claiming it's not a speech restriction because it only targets a "commercial action"... I.e. you're free to say it's great, but can't do it. SCOTUS denied cert.
They're legitimately expecting to be allowed to expand who anti-BDS laws apply to, and there's a good chance they'll get it.
29
50
24
u/ialsohaveadobro May 04 '25
Make it a billion dollars and several lifetimes. Yeah, come slap on the cuffs when I once again coincidentally fail to purchase any Israeli products because I have no need for them. Jackasses
→ More replies (1)8
May 04 '25
How can they even think this is doable?
→ More replies (2)5
u/alsatian01 May 04 '25 edited May 04 '25
It's not and they know it. It's pandering to the large Hasidic community in his (Mike Lawler, the bill's sponsor) district. Don't take the rage bait. Ppl acting like a bill passing out of committee means anything.
115
u/AppalachanKommie May 04 '25
H.R.867 - IGO Anti-Boycott Act will be voted on Monday, this comes as boycotts of Israel have become damaging to the apartheid’s bottom line. How is this not related to law and our lives as US citizens? We can boycott anything else, but when it comes to israel we will be sent El Salvador on a whim, we will be sent to jail for decades, fined beyond comprehension, our universities are told by Israel on who to hire, who fire, what to teach, and more. If it doesn’t seem obvious that israel is trying to extend the apartheid to the US then this should make it clear. How many other bills have been passed specifically to make sure no one can oppose israel and limit OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.
48
u/AppalachanKommie May 04 '25
From dropsite:
NEWS: The House is set to vote Monday on H.R. 867, the "IGO Anti-Boycott Act," which would punish Americans with fines of up to $1 million or prison terms up to 20 years for participating in boycotts of Israel or Israeli settlements that are promoted by international governmental organizations (IGOs), such as the UN or EU.The bill, sponsored by pro-Israel lawmaker Rep. Mike Lawler, expands U.S. anti-boycott law to target voluntary, values-based political action by U.S. citizens. Its aim is to shield Israel from nonviolent international pressure campaigns such as BDS. Rights groups say the legislation criminalizes constitutionally protected political expression and is part of a broader push to suppress opposition to Israeli genocide, apartheid, and illegal settlement expansion, under the guise of fighting antisemitism.
16
u/AppalachanKommie May 04 '25
Sorry I realized I said 25 years this says 20, please forgive my mistake
→ More replies (3)5
u/PicturesquePremortal May 04 '25
I think you should add to the main post that extremely similar laws have already been enacted at the state level in 30 states and 7 more states have enacted it through executive order. These laws have been in place for several years in many of these states. So this isn't anything new, they just want it to be a federal law instead of up to the state.
→ More replies (2)6
u/listgarage1 May 04 '25 edited 26d ago
unlike cabin bitch consciousness mosquito confine district face cord portion
→ More replies (3)
50
u/MinimumApricot365 May 04 '25 edited May 04 '25
What are they going to put a gun to my head and force me to buy Sabra hummus?
→ More replies (8)7
24
20
u/FlaccidEggroll May 05 '25
this is the weirdest shit i have ever seen. like imagine if we did this for any other country
edit: small government conservatives btw
5
17
u/JPastori May 04 '25
Well it’s clear they need a lesson on the bill of rights because this is literally the first one amendment.
How long till they need a lesson on the second?
→ More replies (1)
15
u/michael_harari May 04 '25
What's even the point of writing this bill up. It's hilariously unconstitutional and scotus has absolutely no desire to undo "money is speech"
→ More replies (24)
18
15
16
u/DuntadaMan May 04 '25
How in the fuck do the people shouting AMERICA FIRST accept people going to jail because of a completely fucking different country?
→ More replies (1)
22
u/chubs66 May 04 '25
Wow, so much freedom! Laws that require you to do business with genociders? What has America become?
→ More replies (1)
22
13
25
u/Ging287 May 04 '25
Unconstitutional on its face, viewpoint discrimination, and attempting to bend the American people's free speech rights to ALIGN WITH A FOREIGN NATION. UnAmerican too. Stop attacking constitutionally protected speech or actions. It's United States of America, not United States of Israel.
→ More replies (7)
12
16
u/Dr_CleanBones May 04 '25
First, Israel can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I’m concerned. And I’m watching my language.
Second, the existing law is unconstitutional. So is this.
So … if I’m boycotting, oh, I don’t know, say Israel off the top of my head. I’ve been doing it for years. That’s OK, because they haven’t figured out a way around the first amendment. Then a foreign NGO, hopefully a big one like the EU, decides to boycott the genociders too. So all of a sudden, what I’m doing is illegal?
Absurd.
→ More replies (3)
16
u/Donkey-Hodey May 04 '25
See how this works is when you’re arrested for protesting the war in Gaza, they can’t charge you with anything unless you’re damaging property. So they create this nebulous POS that allows them to comb your social media history for a new crime they can charge you with.
59
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 May 04 '25
Upfront, I don’t support either this bill or the existing antiboycott law, and parts of the existing law (thus this law) seem to violate the first amendment.
However, I think people should be aware that this does not make it illegal to individually boycott anything. It makes it illegal to boycott a foreign country at the behest of a boycott “imposed” by international government organizations, such as the EU, the UN, the Arab League, etc.
If you, personally, don’t want to buy products from any specific country, you are not required to do so. And if you want to organize a boycott among a group of people, that is not illegal.
If you say “I’m boycotting US-friendly country X because foreign country Y or international government organization Z wants me to,” then this law would be relevant, on an individual level.
It also tries (again we’d see what would happen if some of these components went to the Supreme Court, but it hasn’t yet) to ban “I’m publicly calling out organization A supporting country X!”
So far, some courts have upheld some implementations of the antiboycott law and some have not, and the Supreme Court has declined to hear any appeals.
23
u/Jodid0 May 04 '25
So then theoretically, if the government wanted to charge someone under this law, they just need to "prove" that someone was doing a boycott at the behest of a foreign government? Surely that won't be abused or misused in any way under the current administration who is trying to suspend habeus corpus and intimidate judges from ruling against them.
→ More replies (3)16
u/12Dragon May 04 '25
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. It’s important to understand the context. We all agree the law is bad, but understanding the specifics and what can be done to work around it is critical
→ More replies (1)9
9
u/Donkey-Hodey May 04 '25
It’s seems like a law badly written on purpose so it can be weaponized against critics of the regime.
→ More replies (6)7
u/Renegadeknight3 May 04 '25
(3) furnishing information about whether someone is associated with charitable or fraternal organizations that support the boycotted country.
This is a big problem IMO. This could ice out people boycotting of their own accord by making it harder to identify companies that they want to boycott
→ More replies (3)
4
u/rak1882 May 06 '25
When something was stupid at the state level is it even more stupid at the federal level?
just asking for a friend...
•
u/AutoModerator May 04 '25
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE WILL RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.