The bill seeks to expand the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 which, among other things, prohibit U.S. persons from complying with a foreign government's request to boycott a country friendly to the U.S. The bill would amend those laws to bar U.S. persons from supporting boycotts against Israel, including its settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, conducted by international governmental organizations, such as the United Nations and the European Union. It would also broaden the law to include penalties for simply requesting information about such boycotts. Violations would be subject to a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $ 1 million and 20 years in prison. We take no position for or against the effort to boycott Israel or any foreign country, for that matter. However, we do assert that the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, punish U.S. persons based solely on their expressed political beliefs.
I don't think ACLU is exaggerating, but I'd say it's a safe bet most of them have no fucking clue what the bill says or that the bills it references for the punishment section have such harsh punishments. Because these people don't fucking read anything and rely on staffers to notice things.
lol, apparently several states have already passed laws criminalizing this over the last couple years. wtf
Does this mean I have to give up La Croix and use Soda Stream?
i appreciate that teeth
Quote from: meepmeep on July 20, 2017, 11:19:18 AMI don't think ACLU is exaggerating, but I'd say it's a safe bet most of them have no fucking clue what the bill says or that the bills it references for the punishment section have such harsh punishments. Because these people don't fucking read anything and rely on staffers to notice things.when you say "them" do you mean the alcu or senators?
the most effective pro-israel lobby and chuck schumer are engineering an intentionally bad bill to push jews out of politics? is this what you're actually suggesting?
I'm sure jewish americans are even more freaked out by the mainstreaming of the alt-right than I am and can imagine being (and as well they should be, since the alt-right are basically pure evil and the tolerance of them does have obvious historical analogs). I'm guessing that heightened worry is finding some expression through pro-israel activism, for which BDS seems to be a major battle front these days.
feeling very #blessed that forums poster "teeming brown mass" is not my only point of contact with the jewish hivemind
am i "filtering" anything out? am i indeed!eta: actually read the rest of your post, semi decent troll, 5/10
I told him I didn't understand his point. He explained: "People in Israel are committed to the state of Israel. Either they have moved here because they are committed to Israel or have remained here because they are. So when they read a story about Israeli soldiers and Palestinian children they read it in the context that whatever they read, it is not going to shake their commitment. But people in Australia may not have the same commitment. So when they read a story like this they may question their support for Israel. If I was sitting in Australia reading this I would think that Israeli soldiers were brutally treating Palestinian children." He paused. I said nothing. He continued. "A story like this may damage the view Australians have of Israel and they don't have the commitment to Israel to go along with that."
Why do the supporters of Israel want to prevent stories like this from spreading overseas? When we arrived we did not realise the prize that many political factions in the country coveted: formalising the occupation of the West Bank into official annexation and achieving Greater Israel.
As long as Israel insists on maintaining an occupation there will be tensions between journalists reflecting the values of their host countries and Israelis who want to maintain the occupation. The problem is that the media sometimes reports the reality: that it is relentlessly growing settlements, encouraged by financial incentives and a free security service, the IDF.The only way for powerful groups to manage this, then, is to attack the media. As long as the media is seen as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, the thinking goes, then Israel is not at fault.We live at a time when more people are trying to shape reality than report it. The collapse of the traditional newspaper model means there are more people in public relations than journalism, and Israel operates one of the most effective public relations machines in the world. There's a Hebrew word for it: hasbara, or "propaganda". Hasbara is even the name of a government unit.
For example, if the United Nations Human Rights Council requests information from an American company about its business dealings in Israel or Israeli-controlled territories as part of an effort to compile a blacklist of companies doing business with Israel, the bill would prohibit the company from responding.