Anti-BDS Laws and the Attack on Freedom of Speech

The topic of Israel has been a contentious one as of late due to the ongoing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as well as the second class citizenship of those Palestinians that live in East Jerusalem.  The classification of the atrocious actions of Israel are always described as a both sides issue, when one side holds all the power and the other has none of it.  Israel has the support of much stronger nations such as the UK and the US, but the victim card is always played.  In the midst of the current occupation and Israel proclaiming itself the victim for several decades, the existence of anti-BDS laws have been in place which stifle the most basic civil liberty we have, FREE SPEECH!  In this social media age, we have come across numerous articles, publications and various outlets that are pro "Free Speech" *cough* cancel culture *cough*, but rarely have I seen them address this issue.  Filled with the atrocious hypocrisy involved, I ask myself why is this the case?  The monumental success of the Montgomery Bus Boycott allows us to understand the enormous impact that boycotts have on the public.  But the media is either incapable or incompetent in regards to addressing these issues.







The states involved in which the anti-BDS laws have been enacted are as follows:

1.  Alabama
2.  Arizona
3. Arkansas
4. California
5. Colorado
6. Florida
7. Georgia
8. Illinois
9. Indiana
10. Iowa
11. Kansas
12. Kentucky
13. Louisiana
14. Maryland
15. Michigan
16. Minnesota
17. Mississippi
18. Missouri
19. Nevada
20. New Jersey
21. New York
22. North Carolina
23. Ohio
24. Oklahoma
25. Pennsylvania
26. Rhode Island
27. South Carolina
28. South Dakota
29. Texas
30. Wisconsin

The states that are adopting laws are authoritarian and against the principality of free expression.  Thus these laws should be shut down and those that have not enacted should not be.  The ACLU released a letter in response to proposed laws that will impact Americans from each state that have enacted these laws.  The letter states: 

"Make no mistake:  the underlying state bills discriminate solely on the basis of the viewpoint of those impacted. There is a large class of businesses and individuals who do no business with Israel.  Indeed the vast majority of America does no business with Israel.  Those who choose not to engage with Israel on a commercial basis do so for many reasons.  Some, like those impacted by these state laws, oppose Israel’s actions on ideological grounds, voice that opinion, and then follow through.  Others may hold similar beliefs and also refrain from engaging with Israel, but choose not to publicly announce their ideological reasoning.  Still others don’t do business with Israel simply because it doesn’t fit within their business model.  Only those who affirmatively express support for the BDS movement are barred from state contracts and investments even though there are others who refrain to the very same extent.  They are penalized solely because they choose to express their opinion and because their opinion is disfavored by the political class in the states in question.  Such a penalty flies in the face of the First Amendment’s guarantee that the state should impose no law infringing on the right to speak freely and to associate with those of like minds."

As anyone can plainly see the ACLU has taken a position that protects the civil rights of Americans, while taking no ideological position on the issue of Israel/Palestine.  Whether what Israel is doing is against human rights or crimes against humanity, while I may believe they are, is largely irrelevant and not the issue here.  The issue being that states have determined that the civil rights of Americans need to be abridged and are largely arbitrary when it comes to Israel.  Think of the ramifications that may come from this and the dangerous precedent that these laws may present for the future of American society.
















n but

on.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Terrorism: The Arbitrary Term

Image
Terrorism is a term that strikes a feeling of fear and anger within the American public when dealing with the aspect of Americanism that is narrow in its application.  The arbitrary nature of the word requires a function which is necessary to understanding the true purpose in relating to the American people.  The definition, deconstruction, reconstruction, and meaning of the word will all be examined in this piece on the objectivity and reliability of the word. Terrorism as defined by the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) is split into two parts, Domestic and International; Domestic:   "[An act of terrorism] perpetuated by and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S. based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature." International:  "Perpetuated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state sp
Read more

The 'R' Word

Image
In this country, race is a major issue to the fabric of our culture.  Lately, I've seen this hesitance of using the word 'racist' or the term 'racism' to describe such people that use certain language.  Pres. Donald Trump telling four congresswomen of color “to go back to their country” when most of them are from the US is racist.  This is not hard to figure out.  People are okay with racism if and only if it doesn't affect them.  I would like to examine race and issues dealing with this aspect of race to uncover the meaning of 'racism' in this piece.  Let's call a spade, a spade, even when it's someone you admire, like Pres. Trump. First, I want to discuss the fragility of dealing with race in any aspect that may make people uncomfortable.  An incident that explicitly speaks to this issue, is an interview conducted with serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer.  In this interview , the person conducting the interview asked Dahmer, if his killings
Read more

Benefits Versus Responsibilities: The Nature of Imperialism and Conquest

Image
Part I:   Introduction The West's responsibility to the people who have been victimized by supremacy are tantamount also to it's benefits received by those who atypically bear no specific responsibility to the people who have been wronged .  What I would like to pay attention to, is the idea that people seem to focus on, the idea of a specific people being harmed versus the people who have benefited from those harms.  One's situation has to correlate with the aspect of life they have no control over by the time they are born.  The situation that one finds themselves is based on an inherited society and should be governed as such. The idea that we should govern society based on those who are exceptional is a very ludicrous idea and one of the most ludicrous ideas espoused by, not only certain conservative thinkers, but libertarians  and neoliberals as well.  The focus of this article will be based on the idea of reparations, the wealth disparities between classes of people
Read more