How do you outlaw a boycott? It’s not an act, it’s a non-act. An absence of a purchase. How do you distinguish boycott from just not buying something you don’t want or need like any other item. Are we going to be required to put so much of our purchases toward Isreal now?
You outlaw a boycott by using violence against those who promote the boycott. It’s not even anything new. Many states have already been doing this. Not to mention recent disappearances of anti-genocide activists.
Violence in service of hegemony is almost the entire purpose of the state.
Ding ding ding.
This is how they “lawfully” throw “dissidents” into the gulag.
Remember…most of what Hitler did was technically legal and above-board. Because they controlled the laws and shaped them as they saw fit.
boycott
probably using to target groups that are protesting against israel.
the state wants to lock you up, figures out you don’t drink coca cola, You’re on trial for not buying Coca-Cola, or Nestle, or never tried Sabras hummus… straight to jail.
Wrong think will be punished
In other words, yes, precisely, they’re trying to sus out heretics. Don’t want to be mistaken for one? Perform the rites publicly, then.
Twitter sued advertisers who said they were boycotting it, and it worked somehow…
Not just show your papers, show your recent Israel approved consumer good purchases!
Nazi America
Brought to you by millions of fascist fucks, including your own family and friends.
Buy a gun.
How do you enforce anti boycott, how do you force someone to spend their money?
Dont get me wrong Ill know they will try again, but wow.
If you’re an American paying taxes you can’t boycott Israel. It doesn’t even need to be a law.
Seems like they’re trying to turn boycott in to a dirty word.
Yes yes I know where my tax dollars go, thank you. Well, ok actually not entirely, but yes to fund the irl fucking evil empire.
But boycotts make me think of private citzens not buying a product, or from a store or provider, etc.
If you make the 1st Amendment illegal, the rest of the Constitution cannot be far behind.
if? people have already been blackbagged for their speech. this is just encoding something already in effect.
How tf can u ban a boycott, how is that even possible let alone provable 🤦 Politics aside if I js don’t like a brand that endorses or has ties to Israel would I then be subject to charges. How u trynna force people to buy from certain companies, what if I was bruk, would I be breaking the law? 🤡
Excuse me I saw you drinking flat water where is your soda stream ice this one get this one
it will probably use to target protestors, and groups criticial of israel.
This will probably be used to target protestors and organizers of political movements.
Yeah, the boycott itself can’t reasonably be prosecuted. But it can be used to suppress discussion (e.g. organization, coordination) of said boycott.
America can’t be taken seriously anymore.
It’s a good thing Russia gave half of a wakeup call to the rest of the free world to arm the fuck up 3 years ago. We know America can’t be relied on for anything anymore.
Any government that tells you what you can complain about
Is by definition a Totalerian government
Worse than that - they’re trying to tell us what we can spend our money on.
Which according to the horse shit Citizens United ruling is free speech for corporations. But not the people in em I guess.
The bill got pulled!
Good. Holy 💩
For now. Let’s see what happens when it’s budget time again. They’ll probably bury it in there because we live in hell.
Yep, how the government works. Keep spamming a bill that the general public doesn’t want until it sticks. But then no such efforts to repeal it and we’re stuck with the flaming piece of shit.
This is brilliant, you could have the gestasi inspecting everyone at the checkouts at a supermarket, and if you don’t buy a Sodastream cartridge, you get disappeared.
(Sodastream is an Israeli company, and used to manufacture their machines in an industrial park in an Israeli settlement on the West Bank)
Sodastream is an Israeli company
I didn’t know that. Good thing I’ve been boycotting their cylinders for years.
Well fuck, I just got one, I just assumed they were a german company since they’re so popular there
Get a nice bar-sized cylinder of CO2 (sometimes called beer gas) and a 15 dollar adapter. Get you that (nearly) guilt-free bubbly water by never sending them a cent for gas!
Not really any more, mostly though because other companies got into the business and aren’t charging an arm and a leg for carbon dioxide. Other manufacturers also aren’t pointlessly incompatible to each other.
Sparkling water, of course, is still ridiculously popular over here, and carbonating at home is convenient. Then, though: Tap water + soda stream co2 is more expensive than store-brand bottled water.
aarke
I got an Aarke instead because I liked the design, so now I just need to replace my current sodastream cartridge with an offbrand one…
Same. But I switched to a (German) service that mails cylinders. https://sodabaer.de/
Hey big shoutout to all the Redditors and Lemmy guys who told me that we can have no restrictions on free speech because if we restrict Nazis they will restrict us if they ever gain power.
Welp, here ya go…like I told you…and many of you blocked and/or banned me for saying it. Ironic.
deleted by creator
Is the problem the speech or the people tbat speak it?
Great question. Intention matters, so many countries focus on speech that can only be malicious, like incitement to violence in the UK or Nazi salutes in Germany.
People ready and willing to spread violent, harmful hate can be dealt with via the laws they violate. Assult, battey, stalking, theft, etc.
The subtle side is, as always, if your speech cannot persuade the (large) majority that the opposition speech is wrong, then to dismiss the opposition is to become the oppressing minority.
5 bucks says the people who told you that were, in fact, nazis
Hard to say. They mostly seemed like college liberals still living at home
been my experience that that people saying “We have to protect the nazis” are either nazis, or nazis pretending to be their idea of librul to infiltrate,
I have a relevant cartoon that I cant post for some reason…will try again…
[(https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c4568c91-00a0-4bb2-b67e-f32dce46183b.jpeg)]
The bill got pulled. And even if it didn’t it’s such a blatant and egregious violation of 1A that even Trump’s pet judges would have to shoot it down out of fear of the precedent it would set and what would happen if ever they lose power for any length of time.
That’s the conversation I’ve been having with some people cheering on Trump’s immigration moves. I’ve pointed out the machine the individual bricks seems to be building, and when they support that too because Trump will only use it on the “right sort of people” I point out that Trump won’t be in power forever, and ask him what he’d think if someone like Harris or AOC had that same power. That’s when they suddenly get it, because the idea that the same machinery could be brought against them is not something they consider.
The first question you should ask when considering “Should the government have this power?” is “If the people I oppose the very most had this power, what would they do with it?” If you’re not OK with the answer to that, then the government shouldn’t have that power.
i felt like the trolls on reddits are just RU stoking anger and division.
Lets wait and see what percentage of democrats will vote yes
I’m going to guess that they’re trying to make it seem like boycotts are a serious threat. It’s a start but not enough.
Sounds kinda DEI to me
It’s DEI for “white” people from europe so it’s ok.
Didn’t CU rule that spending money is free speech? So isn’t compelling the spending of money compelling speech? Sounds straight up unconstitutional.(as if that fucking matters these days)
Republicans have been undermining the constitution for decades. Now they straight up wipe their ass with it. The Goal has always been a christofacist dictatorship
Wait, doesn’t your argument support their bill?
They’re agreeing with you; they are suggesting that convincing people of what to do with their money is infringing on their “speech.”
Is it saying it’s illegal to “convince”(therefore not the consumer) or it’s illegal to “participate” (meaning the consumer)
My argument is that republicans are never consistent with their policies.
Spending isn’t free speech. The government cannot compell speech. This doesn’t not mean that the government can compell spending (I mean, it sorta can with taxes and fines, but it can’t compell spending to select businesses, markets or groups.)
I agree with you but you’re operating outside of case law and the entire sentiment is moot when arguing this particular case.
Rich people spending money is free speech.
Anti-genocide activists not spending money is terrorism.
AKA the usual.
Oh you didn’t buy a Soda Stream?
Believe it or not, straight to jail!
