Plan B Forum

I disagree with this; the state is sovereign, and the city is not. The state has the right and power to determine what the city can and can’t do. If the state does not want to be involved in some conflict what right does a group of individuals have to impose their will on the millions of people that make up the state of Texas? A private organization can boycott whoever they wish, but the state does not have to pay for it. If the state is forced to support this company, it is being forced to support the companies anti-Semitic boycott of Israel.

Anti-BDS law in Texas violates free speech rights, federal judge rules (msn.com)

Getty/Robyn Beck
Progressives welcomed a federal judge's recent ruling that Texas cannot forbid an engineering firm hired by Houston city officials from boycotting Israel to protest its subjugation of Palestinians — and vowed to keep fighting until the state's anti-boycott law is thrown out completely.

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen on Friday stopped short of fully blocking a state law that prohibits government agencies from doing business with certain companies that boycott Israel. But his ruling said the free speech rights of A&R Engineering and Testing Inc. would be violated if its contract with the city included a clause saying the company will refrain from such a boycott. Hanen also said that Texas could not enforce its law against the company or the city.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of A&R's Palestinian-American owner Rasmy Hassouna last November after the company was unable to renew its contract with the city of Houston due to Hassouna's refusal to sign what CAIR called "an anti-BDS loyalty oath to Israel."

A&R — which had provided more than $2 million worth of services to the city over the past two decades — asked Houston officials to remove the anti-boycott stipulation from the contract. The city refused, however, citing state law.

Hanen was a GW Bush appointment; Senate agreed 97 - 0. (Oh those peaceful days of yore.). Slate recently called him "one of the most notoriously partisan conservatives in the federal judiciary."

A notoriously partisan conservative judge issues a ruling that pleases progressives and is consistent with 1st amendment caselaw.

A blast from the past indeed.

So now the village idiot is on the record believing that the state should have the power to regulate the speech of private businesses.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 03, 2022 12:58 am

A notoriously partisan conservative judge issues a ruling that pleases progressives and is consistent with 1st amendment caselaw.

A blast from the past indeed.

I don’t care if the judge is a liberal or a conservative or a talking baboon; I don’t see this as a free speech issue. Are you telling me that I have to buy you a printing press for you to exercise your free speech? The state of Texas has just as much right to boycott this guy as he has to boycott the Israelis. Would the state have a right to boycott him if he was a professed NAZI? He can exercise his hate speech as much as he wants, but the people of Texas don’t have to be part of it.

Jews in Israel are not doing anything except trying to stay alive. They could have had peace a long time ago if the Palestinians had been willing, but they don’t want peace; they want to kill the Jews. Why can’t the Jews have their homeland? Everybody else does.

So a state passes a law that says, in order to do business with the government, the business owner must be a member of the Communist Party.

What now, genius?

Or a democrat, or a republican, or an Episcopalean, or ... Your view is pretty dangerous Lib.

On the other hand, if I am the owner of the printing press, I cannot be required to publish what YOU want. Same principal that a BBS cannot be required to post any or everything.

And by the way, even if I refuse to print what you want, that in no way interferes with free speech. You can still say it, but you cannot require anyone else to listen.

snailgate

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 03, 2022 4:57 pm

On the other hand, if I am the owner of the printing press, I cannot be required to publish what YOU want. Same principal that a BBS cannot be required to post any or everything.

And by the way, even if I refuse to print what you want, that in no way interferes with free speech. You can still say it, but you cannot require anyone else to listen.

snailgate

And just to add to that ... even if they DO listen, they don't need to have to act on it.

-"BB"-

Mr. Liberty seems to hold that 'free speech and free press' means one is free to speak or print anything with no consequences. In the Texas situation, above, individuals or even organizations are free to say or print whatever they want about Israel and Palestine, or even to act to boycott one of them. But there are consequences.

See long string of court cases about theaters and shouting 'fire'.

snailgate

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 03, 2022 5:43 pm

Mr. Liberty seems to hold that 'free speech and free press' means one is free to speak or print anything with no consequences. In the Texas situation, above, individuals or even organizations are free to say or print whatever they want about Israel and Palestine, or even to act to boycott one of them. But there are consequences.

See long string of court cases about theaters and shouting 'fire'.

snailgate

No, it is just the opposite; Mr. Rasmy Hassouna has a right to express his hatred for the Jews of Israel and employ a boycott to weaken their ability to defend themselves and provide for their eventual extermination. The consequence is the people of Texas don’t have to finance his hatred.

Suppose there is a doubt where the people of texas stand on this put the question on the ballot. I think that most Texans have sympathy for the Israelis situation. Unlike the Russians, the Israelis don’t have thousands of square miles of territory to operate in; if they lose one battle, it could mean the gas chambers. Gas chambers here are used as a metaphor.

The Village Idiot wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 03, 2022 8:04 pm

Mr. Rasmy Hassouna has a right to express his hatred for the Jews of Israel and employ a boycott to weaken their ability to defend themselves and provide for their eventual extermination. The consequence is the people of Texas don’t have to finance his hatred.

Yes or no, a state can require a business owner to be a member of the Communist Party in order to secure government contracts. Because you can't have it both ways.

Suppose there is a doubt where the people of texas stand on this put the question on the ballot.

So the Constitution becomes meaningless; citizens shall only have those rights that are granted by popular vote.