Crackdown on Newspapers for freedom of speech with new censorship laws

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stylinexpat, Mar 10, 2019.

  1. stylinexpat macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #1
    Who could possibly be behind all these new laws and bills being passed in the US? A article and good video on all this in the link below.

    Must be another conspiracy theory about media control again...:rolleyes:o_O Either this is true or false of them being asked to sign. If financial interests are currently connected to this signature and what is said or written in the press then Freedom of Press is being censored by the State. This is pretty much blackmail by what ever Lobby supports such Bills and Laws. Does make sense why the smear campaign was started against Ilhan Omar and why Trump thought she should resign :rolleyes:

    https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...newspaper-is-fighting-the-states-anti-bds-law
     
  2. JayMysterio macrumors 6502a

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge, California
    #2
    That seems to run counter to the belief that "Corporations are people too".
     
  3. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #3
    I think the title is a little misleading here- this isn’t about censoring newspapers, though clearly a newspaper is affected.

    There’s different philosophies on boycotting Israel, from just settlements, any goods or services produced from the Israel, to also boycotting US companies who work with Israel.

    If you go for the most extreme example, boycotting Israel and any company that does business with them, it’s going to affect many large US companies including defense contractors. I’ sure these lobby’s won’t be happy either. (I’m also not sure how people expect to get healthcare when Teva Pharmacueticals is an Israeli company and is the largest generic manufacturer in the world. Every pharmacy and hospital uses Teva products. I’m willing to bet 25%+ of BDS supporters with a prescription have taken Teva products)

    Arkansas has a large evangelical Christian population. Many fundamentalist Christians believe Israel and Jews to be central to their second coming prophecy. There’s an estimated 2,225 Jews in Arkansas as of 2018. I don’t doubt AIPAC had a hand in passing this legislation, but to believe its their sole interest is silly.

    Though I disagree with boycotts, said, I’m not sure how the government (Federal or State) can constitutionally justify these laws. I suppose it’s kind of the opposite of the US being able to sanction other countries? Is it because they’re not banning boycotts, just choosing who can receive government contracts? I’d be interested in an explanation. It doesn’t seem quite kosher to me. That said, I suppose private businesses can arbitrarily choose who they do business with, so I’m not sure how enforceable this law even is.
     
  4. stylinexpat thread starter macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #4
    If you disagree with Boycotts then you must disagree with sanctions as well.

    I see double standards in this as basically the government can pass laws which pretty much Boycott doing business with a Business if they don't do things to their likings. If the paper can not print what they want to print then it is called censorship. You have to watch the video and listen to interview to understand how the censorship is being applied.
     
  5. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #5
    I disagree with Boycotts against Israel.
     
  6. stylinexpat thread starter macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #6
    Do you support sanctions or agree with sanctions against others?
     
  7. FrenchRoasted macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    #7
    "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
    - Voltaire

    Now that's not to say I believe the Jews_rule_the_world_banking_system conspiracy stuff, but don't doubt the Israel Lobby is very powerful. Add to to the fact that the Military Industrial Complex is deeply involved and you get a lot of powerful people who will go to great lengths to keep the status quo.
     
  8. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #8
    I just recently read an article, which I can't remember where or what the headline was, but it pointed out that anti-Semitic remarks made by white people, especially white men, tend to not attract attention, whereas Omar, a black Muslim woman, is relentlessly criticized.

    So power balance is white > Jews > black, Muslim.
     
  9. FrenchRoasted macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    #9
    I'm not talking about antisemitism at all. I'm talking about criticism of the state of Israel. There is a distinct difference.
     
  10. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #10
    Ah, okay. Hmmm, are there any politicians other than Omar who has criticized Israel recently? I kind of vaguely think maybe Sanders said something recently. Other than that I'm drawing a blank. Do you think a white politician would also draw the same kind of attention as Omar if they were to criticize Israel?
     
  11. FrenchRoasted macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    #11
    I don't know, and I'm too lazy to google it at the moment. I would say most white politicians would be too afraid to do so, even if they were so inclined.
     
  12. stylinexpat thread starter macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #12
    As we have been seeing though is that these new bills and laws that were passed are now being used as a tool against media outlets and organizations to silence them via pretty much a newly legalized form of blackmail or say threats against businesses.
     
  13. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #13
    In certain situations. I agree with boycotts in certain situations.
    Remember in 2016 (the end of his term) when Obama abstained rather than the usual veto of a UN resolution condemned Israeli settlements? He signed the Iran Nuclear deal much to the chagrin of Israel. Obama also had that comment about Israel reverting to 1967 borders which they also didn’t like. In his campaign he wanted to give part of Jerusalem to Palestine. There as also the picture of him with Farrakhan that came out and he was a member of Rev. Wright’s congregation, both notorious antisemites.

    I don’t think there was widespread acceptance or legitimate condemnation of Obama for being an anti-Semite that I recall. I’m sure there are some voices. Most Jews voted for him, twice, and he actually did a number good things for Israel.

    I think everyone recognized Obama was critical of Netanyahu and lot of his policies relating to Palestine. There was that time Obama used US taxpayer money to try to sway Israeli voters away from Netanyahu in the 2015 election. Bill Clinton has admitted to intervening in their 1996 elections while president for the same reason, though he has not described how. Political influence isn’t a one sided game.
     
  14. stylinexpat thread starter macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #14
    I asked about sanctions.
     
  15. JagdTiger macrumors 6502

    JagdTiger

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2017
    #15
    If you were to take a guess would it be from outside influences from another country?
    --- Post Merged, Mar 11, 2019 ---

    America was partly founded on religious freedom not freeedom of one religion or “religious” country pupetereeeing it.
     
  16. stylinexpat thread starter macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #16
    Hard to say but we do know for a fact that extremist parties do support such laws being passed in the US and these extremist parties are very well known for their racist policies and rhetoric abroad. Of course this does not mean that locally everyone is on board. These same laws and policies are pretty much a replicate of the laws that exist in Israel which were passed by extremist parties in Israel. If the US passed laws that extremist parties in Saudi Arabia,Iran,China or some other party passed in their country I reckon there would be quite a bit of outrage locally and I would bet my right nut on it that Fox News would then be all over it too..:p

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/pms-s...er-he-rebukes-politicians-anti-arab-rhetoric/
     
  17. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #17
    I answered your question in the first sentence.
     
  18. stylinexpat thread starter macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #18
    We do know that Boycotting and sanctioning are pretty similar so does that then mean it is ok Boycott or Sanction only to our likings or personal interests..? Sanctioning Iran,Iraq,Libya,Russia or some other country would be ok but sanctioning Israel would then be anti-Semitic or would it not be..? My point is that laws need to be equal over all people,all countries without discrimination or bias. Bills,laws and resolutions that get submitted,written up or passed must be fair without bias.:)
     
  19. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #19
    I not a supporter of these kinds of laws. But when it comes to constitutionality... under existing precedents (e.g., Rumsfeld v Fair (USSC, 2006) they likely would be constitutional. And that's not just because the requirement not to boycott is a condition of receiving government funds. The Supreme Court in Rumsfeld indicated that the government could impose the requirement in question there even if the colleges didn't receive federal money.

    Think about public accommodations anti-discrimination laws. They are, essentially, prohibitions on boycotting certain individuals or classes of individuals. If businesses offer certain services, they can't choose not to do business with individuals based on, e.g., their race or religion or nationality.

    A key distinction is conduct versus expression. So while a state government might be able to require that a business contracting with the government doesn't boycott Israel, it likely couldn't prohibit a business contracting with the government from criticizing Israel or even advocating for boycotts of Israel.

    That said, you're right when it comes to enforceability. While a government actor might be able to require a declaration that a business doesn't (or won't) boycott Israel, that doesn't mean the business has to do business with Israel. It may not have a need to do business with Israel, or it may choose to do business with others for a multitude of reasons. It just couldn't refuse to do business with Israel when it otherwise would have chosen to. Absent an admission that a business was boycotting Israel, in many contexts it would be hard to demonstrate that it was.
     
  20. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #20
    The problem with anti-BDS laws is this: They violate citizens fundamental Constitutional right to peaceably express political ideas.

    Citizens of the United States are free to boycott any business or country they want. Don't like the owners' positions on gay rights or employer-paid contraceptive coverage? Then you are free to call for a boycott of Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby.

    Government-imposed sanctions are one thing. We have little direct control over our individual right to do business with Iran, Cuba, or North Korea. The US Government (rightfully?) maintains control over our legal ability to do so.

    But me or you personally doing business with organisations tied to the State of Israel? That is a matter of personal choice and individual free speech. And any State or Federal attempt to interfere with one's ability to speak out, either in favour of or against, doing business with Israel (or any other state) is a clear infringement upon the First Amendment.
     
  21. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #21
    There is a difference between criticizing the actions of Israel, or more specifically the actions of the current government of Israel, and antisemitism. After all Israel also includes many Arab people (about 20% of the country), many of whom are Muslim, whether that moron Netanyahu sees them second-class citizens or not. So, a boycott of Israel does not sound wholly unreasonable to me, nor antisemitic, and I wonder what the state of Arkansas would do if South Africa were still practicing apartheid and subject to a boycott. This is a bad law.
     
  22. JagdTiger macrumors 6502

    JagdTiger

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2017
    #22
    According to some biblical authorities we are (tribes from northern part of Israel that is, America/England and parts of Northern Europe) Israel and not Israel itself.
     
  23. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #23
    To the extent these laws prohibit expression - e.g., criticism of Israel or advocacy of boycotts of Israel - they would likely be unconstitutional. But prohibiting conduct - e.g., boycotting Israel - is a different matter. Some conduct can be sufficiently expressive such that it is protected under free speech principles, but conduct in general is not.

    Rightly or wrongly, governments sometimes effectively prohibit certain parties from boycotting certain other parties. Think, e.g., about public accommodations anti-discrimination laws. The conduct versus expression distinction is important when it comes to the legality of such prohibitions.
     
  24. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #24
    But public accommodations are completely different from boycotts.

    And Civil Rights Law and history provides a very clear example. The Montgomery Public Transportation system was discriminating against African American riders (requiring they surrender their seats to white passengers). The African American community responded with a boycott.

    The courts, and subsequent Civil Rights Legislation, established the illegality of what the bus company was doing: They had a legal obligation under the doctrine of public accommodation to not discriminate on the basis of race. But there was no such restriction placed upon the general public, or the African American community. The general public has no obligation to ride buses at all. A citizen may decide to walk, to drive a car, or to find any alternative mode of transport. A bus company, by its very nature, has an obligation (with very few exceptions) to provide transportation to anyone who wishes to board their vehicles.

    And that's the problem with the anti-BDS laws. I have no obligation to do business with any company associated with Israel, or indeed any company at all. And I am certainly free to say so.

    I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand.
     
  25. stylinexpat thread starter macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #25
    When the US refuses to sanction that is usually the case when people revert to Boycotting. They never fail to sanction other countries. Essentially sanctioning then is prohibiting people,countries or businesses from doing business with them which is actually worse than people,companies or businesses just Boycotting ;) If one is ok then the other should be also. When America sanctions a country they pretty much make all the people form that country pay the price. It is painting with a broad brush.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 12, 2019 ---
    This is a great example, thanks for sharing. In Israel there is also discrimination based on race so why then should Boycotting not be ok in the US..?
     

Share This Page

32 March 10, 2019