Key claim of lawsuit: Participation in boycotts of Israel constitutes protected speech and expressive conduct.
Lawsuit text:
https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Memorandum.p...
Lawsuit text:
https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Memorandum.p...
Where would the Civil Rights movement have been without boycotts?
I was once asked in an interview whether "The State of Israel had a right to exist". I replied that no state has a "right to exist" but that individuals have a right to self-determination. A human right that various international laws and conventions give both Israelis and Palestinians. Needless to say, I did not get that job.
BTW, there was a good documentary about this recently in DOC NYC: https://www.docnyc.net/film/boycott/
On what basis? Would a boycott of a protected class of persons be permissible?
But these laws would seem unconstitutional on the basis of the first amendment and precedent: (e.g. In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982).)
And the boycott movement is not about targeting individuals or classes of individuals. BDS encourages supporters to select targets based on their complicity in Israel's human rights violations, potential for cross-movement solidarity, media appeal, and likelihood of success.
In 1966 African Americans in Clairborne County, Mississippi, participated in a sustained boycott of white-owned businesses to put pressure on local government and business leaders to meet their 19 “Demands for Racial Justice.” The document, drafted by the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), laid out specific measures to advance the civil rights of African Americans, from desegregation of bus stations to asking that blacks be addressed as “Mr.” and “Mrs.” rather than derogatory terms such as “boy.”
Three years later, a group of white business owners sued the NAACP and its leaders, who had organized and enforced the boycott, for the economic damages they had suffered.
The Supreme Court ruled that the NAACP’s boycott was composed of elements protected by the First Amendment: speech, assembly, and petition. The Court also paid particular attention to the end goal of the boycotters.
In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens compared the NAACP boycott campaign with the railroad association’s public relations campaign in Noerr and concluded that the boycott was entitled to even greater protection.
I can see the similarity to Claiborne and the differences since in the case of Claiborne:
* there was a specific petition (of which I'm not aware in the case of the Israel boycott, but may exist)
* the boycott's target was a domestic entity as opposed to a foreign nation, which seems to go around traditional prohibitions against individuals conducting foreign policy
BOYCOTTS involve withdrawing support from Israel's apartheid regime, complicit Israeli sporting, cultural and academic institutions, and from all Israeli and international companies engaged in violations of Palestinian human rights.
Also, it's important to mention that the academic boycott if Israeli institutions is an important component of the BDS movement. A general boycott is necessary because there is a moral imperative to end the occupation and only outside pressure, like the pressure that was exerted on the apartheid regime in South Africa, can perhaps achieve this.
Why academia? Because Israeli academia is also a mouthpiece of the establishment and is used to enable Israel to present itself abroad as "the only democracy in the Middle East."
> It is much more then I implied.
Is this an inverse form of motte and bailey argumentation? Are there any institutions associated with Israel that BDS would not cover? How can a disinterested person distinguish between a moral imperative based boycott and run of the mill anti-semitism (Baptist and Bootlegger problem)? Would a constitutional test for the Texas law fail if the petitioner's motivation were the latter or does it not make a difference?
After all, BDS campaigns may seem rather silly.
Would it possibly matter if you stop buying Sabre Hummus?
But these campaigns can be effective (for their proponents). They make US citizens aware of the conditions they would not otherwise be aware of.
Although A & R’s boycott has not materially affected any of its business decisions through the present, A&R would refuse to buy an Israeli-sourced product were the opportunity to otherwise arise. Moreover, even if A & R was not boycotting Israel, it would refuse to certify that it would not boycott Israel for the duration of the renewal contract because, by signing, A & R would be compelled to speak in furtherance of a foreign government’s interests. But for the renewal contract’s certification requirement, based on the Anti-BDS Law, A&R is ready, willing, and able to enter into the contract and perform the agreed-upon engineering services for the City.