Hacker News Reader

Comment by rubyist5eva | Hacker News Reader

This man is free to protest and boycott (freedom of speech) whomever he likes, that does not entitle him to government contracts (not freedom from consequence). You don't have a constitutional right to government contracts.

I don't like the ban but the argument is silly.

EDIT: I'm being rate limited on replies for some reason, I'd like to respond to some comments on here but I cannot. Mayhaps I will try again in a few hours.

View on HN

> you don't have a constitutional right to government contracts

You do have a First Amendment right to not having your freedom of speech abridged by the government. Since 1925, that restriction has been incorporated, i.e. it applies to states like Texas. Government contracts, like laws, are restricted by the Constitution.

Nobody is abridging his First Amendment right. He is free to go and boycott Israel and talk about all of their atrocities as much as he pleases. Doing business with the government is not covered by the First Amendment - he is not being threatened for boycotting Isreal, he just can't sell to them - just like I would be free to not do business with him for the same reason.

> Doing business with the government is not covered by the First Amendment

The term you're looking for is the "unconstitutional conditions doctrine" [1]. It's not black and white. But it will be difficult for Texas to argue that U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel is germane to soil volatility in the Gulf of Mexico.

[1] https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...

Yeah exactly - it would be very difficult for the state to prove that there's a compelling interest to this clause in the contract besides having a chilling effect on a particular opinion.

The doctrine is not absolute and there are many cases where it is applied seemingly inconsistently. Rust V. Sullivan probably being one of the most notable, where the court upheld a physician's First Amendment right for referring abortions could be constrained on condition of federal funding for their practice.

If a person is aware that he/she is waiving their rights, and is not some accidental waiver, the government is not being deceptive or coercive, the person is free to reject the offer from the government without sanction, and the person waiving their right has the capacity to understand that they are doing - then there is no (generally) constitutional violation.

In the context of employment or government contracts, the government does not guarantee employment to every person. The fact that a potential employee (for example) may be impoverished and desperate for a paying job does not make the government’s conditions for the job coercive, unless the government specifically created the person’s unemployment.

> Doing business with the government is not covered by the First Amendment...

Yes, it is. The government refusing to do business with you solely because of First Amendment-protected speech would be a clear interference with that right.

To your point it sounds like the law prohibits for the state of Texas to work with companies that choose to boycott Israel. The person's rights are not prohibited but if they choose to take part in those activities then the state of Texas will not work with them.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/05/09/Texas-anti-boycott-i...

This is not unprecedented among states in the U.S. Many states have banned government work and travel to other states and countries due to policy issues.

https://apnews.com/article/california-florida-lifestyle-trav...

i have a question. if the lawmakers made a law "no doing business with a company unless they boycott israel". will that also work? would that be constitutional?

This is already the case for North Korea.

Not only will the US government refuse to do business with you, they'll charge you with a crime.

i think you answered my question

Not with federal funds you don't. This is the same reason that catholic hopsitals who won't perform abortions are at risk of losing funding.

Federal contracts require you to bend over backwards for disabled people (now that I phrase it like that, it does sound bad, but replace disabled with Israelis and it's the same thing): https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/section-503

They go against the market to bend over backwards for certain other groups of people: https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/grow-your-business/become...

This is not really bending over backwards, but they do need you to spend additional resources on other shit as well: https://www.employer.gov/EmploymentIssues/Federal-contractor...

Don't be surprised to find out that the federal government doesn't believe in the free market.

Freedom is precisely freedom from consequences. Consider the prototypical privilege of driving an automobile. You are not free to drive (without a license) precisely because there are consequence if you get caught doing so. If you exclude consequences from your reckoning of freedom, everyone is free to drive and you can say everyone has a freedom to drive (but they don't have the freedom to be free of consequences of driving). Being left alone is precisely what freedom implies otherwise you are just talking about ability.

I'm just curious, would you have any problem with a similar law that said people were free to protest or speak out about any political party they wanted to but that they could not get a government contract unless they agree to support the Democratic party?

I'm mostly certain social media groups were blocking pro Trump stuff throughout 2020, and they were doing it out of fear of pressure from Democrats.

Are those "certain social media groups" the government?

It's not legal for domestic political parties to blatantly fund themselves in that way. It IS legal for the department of state to enforce laws around international commerce.

"You're free to do X but that doesn't mean the government can't take adverse action in response" is true of literally all crimes. You're free to go blow up a courthouse, but will be arrested and probably executed. That isn't what freedom means. The Bill of Rights guarantees the government can't legally sanction you for protected speech. Any sanctions at all. It doesn't only keep them from severing your vocal chords to prevent speech entirely. They also can't imprison you, fine you, intimidate you, or prevent you from competing in otherwise open contract bids.

How can a government contract have a "discrimination" clause in it?

What next? How about a MAGA state saying "You have to acknowledge that Trump won the 2020 elections to work with us"?

Wow, the comments in here are really opening my eyes to what HN actually is instead of what I thought it was.

This man is the one who is discriminating, he has freedom to do so but he does not have freedom from the consequences. He can't do business with the government, just as I (in theory) could legally refuse to do business with him on the same basis.

> he can't do business with the government, just as I (in theory) could legally refuse to do business with him on the same basis

You're not constrained by the First Amendment. Texas is.

You personally have that right. The state of Texas must provide contracts with no bias and only considering the quality of work the contractor would provide.

The state is not allowed to discriminate based on arbitrary attributes of that contractor.

HN has always had a mix of people. There’s a distinct portion of people on here who trend toward center right and libertarian ideals. There’s a smaller but still solid segment who are more leftists who also generally oppose big authority in certain ways (some Govt stuff, big tech), but otherwise don’t have much overlap with the former group. I’m of the latter group, but it’s plain HN and even Slashdot in the old days, always had these sort of divides.

You’ll never find a place that won’t have these sort of divides unless you specifically go to a site for only your political views.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com