NY Governor boycotting businesses boycotting Israel

[Beerina]

Israel is not a race. It is a country. a political entity. The boycott is targeting the government of Israel over certain policies and the companies that facilitate those policies. Participants in BDS are refusing to do business with a government and companies based on their actions, not ethnicity or nationality or religion.



Money is speech, haven't you heard? And yes, by ending business relationships with these small businesses and individuals, they are hurting private citizens for expressing a political opinion. Not for doing anything illegal are actually discriminating against a minority.




Its targeting people expressing a certain opinion about a foreign government's policy.



No, it is political strong arming. Going around and compiling lists of people with a certain opinion about a foreign government?



Again money is speech. Do keep up. Refusing to do business with a government because of their policies is not discrimination.

If BDS was calling for outright refusal to do business with any Jews or any Israelis even if they have nothing to do with the government's actions towards the Palestinians, that would be wrong and I would support this measure. And that would fit your ham fisted attempt to reference the Jim Crow South.



A government punishing free speech is never in the right.

Money is speech when it is used for advertising or publishing. Not normal commerce.

This is fighting back against perceived antisemitism driving BDS at the high levels.

 

[Cain]

You have substituted intent for action. The intent may be to stop Israeli policies they perceive as racist, but the actions which they are doing is still discriminating on the basis of nationality.

What's amusing about your posts is that you have little idea how to actually craft a solid argument, let alone strip complex arguments down to fundamentals. This is fairly common and unremarkable; what makes you slightly different are these grand delusions of something more than competence.

As much as you would like to now pretend that I have changed the argument, your post still claims, "He's simply taking the position that the state will not deal with companies which discriminate on the basis of nationality against Israelis."

Yeah, and men are boycotting tampons. Of course, the basis is not simply being Israeli. It's a tad more complicated.

A Tale of Two Responses

In the case of Israel, a peace-loving state that takes every conceivable precaution to spare innocent civilian life, there are times when they must -- unfortunately -- level a city block in order to kill terrorists. Naturally, civilians die, but this was not the holy state's intent.

Non-violent activists want to put an end to Israel's allegedly racist policies, allegedly illegal occupation, so they've concocted a boycott-divestment plan, and the result is that ALL Israeli companies are now caught in the crossfire! Their only "crime"? Being Israeli. Activists are trying to bleed and kill innocent corporations.

I'm sure that if a boycott/divestment campaign only went after particular Israeli companies -- surgically targeting them like the IDF -- then Ziggurat, Mycroft, Gov. Cuomo and other reliable apologists would never bring nationality into the mix. Why would they??

It's not as if they have a choice about paying taxes.

Yeah, it's not as though a company has ever relocated to avoid paying taxes.

The distinction between action and perception is not merely semantic.

There is a difference between action and perception. This is absolutely true, and this observation does absolutely nothing to rebut anything I have said. The rest of your post is more of the same -- squirming and worming, cutting up my post because you cannot sustain an argument. There's almost no point repeating myself so I'll leave it to others to infer what they will from your original reply and my original response.

Arguing with you is like playing chess against a pigeon -- you're just going to crap all over the board and then strut around like you won.

 

[Ziggurat]

What's amusing about your posts is that you have little idea how to actually craft a solid argument, let alone strip complex arguments down to fundamentals.

How would you know? You still don't have a clue about what we're discussing.

As much as you would like to now pretend that I have changed the argument, your post still claims, "He's simply taking the position that the state will not deal with companies which discriminate on the basis of nationality against Israelis."

Yes, I do claim that. And you have done nothing to show that this is wrong. You have merely appealed to motives as if motives negate action.

But perhaps what you're confused by is the phrase "discriminate on the basis of". Perhaps you think this refers to motive. But it does not. It refers to the criteria by which one discriminates, ie, determines whether to treat someone one way or another. And regardless of the motive, this discrimination is absolutely being done on the basis of nationality. If a company is Israeli, the BDS movement wants you to not do any business with them. If the company is not Israeli, the BDS movement approves of doing business with them. The BDS movement has specifically stated so, as I quoted earlier. And that's discriminating on the basis of nationality. That's what the phrase means.

It's not actually complicated, but evidently you're too clever to understand the simple.

Yeah, and men are boycotting tampons. Of course, the basis is not simply being Israeli. It's a tad more complicated.

Their motives may be complicated. Their actions, however, are not, and their actions for the basis for Cuomo's response.

I'm sure that if a boycott/divestment campaign only went after particular Israeli companies -- surgically targeting them like the IDF -- then Ziggurat, Mycroft, Gov. Cuomo and other reliable apologists would never bring nationality into the mix. Why would they??

Your certainty about a hypothetical alternative reality isn't relevant, since the argument here is about this reality, and in this reality, the BDS movement isn't targeting only certain Israeli companies, but all Israeli companies.

The rest of your post is more of the same -- squirming and worming, cutting up my post because you cannot sustain an argument.

Nope, I cut up your posts so that my replies to specific statements are located next to those statements, making it easier to reference them.

There's almost no point repeating myself

Well of course not. You were wrong the first time, repetition won't make you right.

Arguing with you is like playing chess against a pigeon -- you're just going to crap all over the board and then strut around like you won.

Even your insults are unoriginal.

 

[Ziggurat]

Money is speech when it is used for advertising or publishing.

No, even then money is not speech. But it is impossible to restrict the purchase of speech without restricting speech, because speech that is purchased is still speech, and a restriction on purchasing speech is a restriction on speech that has been purchased.

 

[catsmate]

Is the boycott itself illegal? I'm asking as I would have thought it would be hard for a government to refuse to do business with a company based on the company's "non-illegal" policies?

The boycott is not illegal. Your second question is nonsensical.

No it's not. Given that even you have conceded that the original anti-Israel boycott is legal then the actions of a government agency to boycott businesses on the grounds that they don't like their, perfectly legal, actions is dubious at best.

 

[Ziggurat]

No it's not. Given that even you have conceded that the original anti-Israel boycott is legal then the actions of a government agency to boycott businesses on the grounds that they don't like their, perfectly legal, actions is dubious at best.

No. You are wrong. State governments and the federal government regularly institute stricter requirements for engaging in business with the government than the law requires of those businesses. This is a long-established and widely-used practice (see prevailing wages, for example), and there's nothing dubious about it. It's actually quite routine.

 

[TragicMonkey]

At what point does this sort of thing cross the line into foreign policy? States aren't allowed to conduct foreign affairs, that's for the federal government.

 

[mumblethrax]

Should the state of New York be free to not do business with you, if you so choose?

To me, the answers to both questions are obviously yes and yes.

That seems very far from obvious to me. The state ought to be constrained in ways that individuals are not. Ideally, the state would be using neutral criteria for determining who it does business with; otherwise, you end up with exactly this situation--the quashing of speech (political speech, no less) by other means.

And let's not kid ourselves, the point of generating a public blacklist is to try to shame companies and organizations that support BDS, not simply to avoid doing business with them.

 

[Ziggurat]

That seems very far from obvious to me. The state ought to be constrained in ways that individuals are not. Ideally, the state would be using neutral criteria for determining who it does business with; otherwise, you end up with exactly this situation--the quashing of speech (political speech, no less) by other means.

Once again, it isn't speech which qualifies a company for boycott by the state, but action. And whether or not you think the state should be unable to use non-neutral criteria, there is nothing new or even unusual about the state doing so. If you think the state should stop doing that, you've got to contend with a hell of a lot more state actions than just this one.

And let's not kid ourselves, the point of generating a public blacklist is to try to shame companies and organizations that support BDS, not simply to avoid doing business with them.

And what's the point of BDS itself? Doesn't shame play a large role in their tactics as well?

 

[mumblethrax]

Once again, it isn't speech which qualifies a company for boycott by the state, but action.

This distinction is spurious. Speech is an action, which is why the relevant professionals talk about "speech acts".

But it should be a source of concern that the "action" is only detectable when married to a speech act. If I decline to buy Sabra hummus at the local market tonight, my reasons for doing so are not telegraphed, because I don't have to fill out form 27B/Z "Reasons for Failing to Purchase Israeli Goods" at the register. It's only when I say "I stand with BDS" that I can be singled out.

And whether or not you think the state should be unable to use non-neutral criteria, there is nothing new or even unusual about the state doing so. If you think the state should stop doing that, you've got to contend with a hell of a lot more state actions than just this one.

I'm sure that I do, but I can prioritize this one as especially egregious and erosive of civil liberties. Which is what I would do. This is so far from neutral that it probably can't withstand a constitutional challenge.

And what's the point of BDS itself? Doesn't shame play a large role in their tactics as well?

What a bizarre response. The point of that comment was that we should not be naive about Cuomo's intentions here--he is not merely declining to do business with those who support BDS, he is publicly shaming them.

Of course BDS is shaming those who contribute to Palestinian subjugation, but this has never been sugarcoated in the first place and so doesn't bear mentioning. And BDS is not the state, so this has no bearing on the argument I've put forward, which is that the state is (and ought to be) subject to more constraints than private organizations.

 

[Ziggurat]

This distinction is spurious.

It most definitely is not.

Speech is an action, which is why the relevant professionals talk about "speech acts".

Suppose you own a restaurant. You are free to say, "we don't want to serve black customers". That's speech. You are NOT free to actually refuse to serve black customers. That isn't speech, it's commerce.

The state of NY is making its decision on the basis of commerce, not speech.

But it should be a source of concern that the "action" is only detectable when married to a speech act.

Suppose a black person walks into a restaurant and the restaurant refuses to serve him. Did they refuse to serve him because he's black, or because he didn't abide by the restaurant's formal dress code? The latter is legal, the former is not, but we can only detect the difference because of speech.

This isn't a new problem. We've been dealing with it for decades.

I'm sure that I do, but I can prioritize this one as especially egregious and erosive of civil liberties.

Except that it is not actually remarkable at all in this respect. If you think it is, then you are sadly ignorant of the sort of actions the state regularly takes.

This is so far from neutral that it probably can't withstand a constitutional challenge.

I seriously doubt it. In fact, the state-level boycotts of other states over the whole transgender bathroom stuff is far more constitutionally suspect than this is.

What a bizarre response. The point of that comment was that we should not be naive about Cuomo's intentions here

You seem naive about the intentions of the BDS movement.

he is not merely declining to do business with those who support BDS, he is publicly shaming them.

The fact that these companies are supporting the BDS movement isn't secret, they make it known. So how can he really be shaming them by publicly stating what they already publicly state? That makes no sense. Furthermore, so what? Politicians frequently try to publicly shame groups in order to change their behavior. There is no constitutional protection against being shamed. You couldn't even construct one if you wanted to.

Of course BDS is shaming those who contribute to Palestinian subjugation, but this has never been sugarcoated in the first place and so doesn't bear mentioning. And BDS is not the state, so this has no bearing on the argument I've put forward, which is that the state is (and ought to be) subject to more constraints than private organizations.

"Shaming" is basically the least coercive form of government pressure. If that's the best you have, you have nothing.

 

[mumblethrax]

It most definitely is not.

It is, and I told you why.

Suppose you own a restaurant. You are free to say, "we don't want to serve black customers". That's speech. You are NOT free to actually refuse to serve black customers. That isn't speech, it's commerce.

I note that you've dropped 'action' and replaced it with 'commerce', but this has little to do with the situation under discussion: the governor of a state taking punitive action against a boycott that entails political expression. A by-other-means suppression of speech.

The state of NY is making its decision on the basis of commerce, not speech.

Oh, that's just nonsense. If it were making a decision based on commerce, it would make the decision without regard to political expression of its commercial partners. It's making decisions on the basis of what those partners have expressed. That is, on the basis of speech.

Suppose a black person walks into a restaurant and the restaurant refuses to serve him. Did they refuse to serve him because he's black, or because he didn't abide by the restaurant's formal dress code? The latter is legal, the former is not, but we can only detect the difference because of speech.

Well, no, that's just not true. The difference lies primarily in circumstances. For example, if the black customer met the formal dress code, the idea that they ejected him because he didn't will be impossible to sustain before the court.

Except that it is not actually remarkable at all in this respect. If you think it is, then you are sadly ignorant of the sort of actions the state regularly takes.

It is remarkable, because it's suppressive of political expression.

I seriously doubt it. In fact, the state-level boycotts of other states over the whole transgender bathroom stuff is far more constitutionally suspect than this is.

Go ahead any make that argument. Back in the real world, few jurists believe that Cuomo's order will survive constitutional challenge.

You seem naive about the intentions of the BDS movement.

I do? On what basis, given that I have said literally nothing about their intentions beyond agreeing with you that they are engaged in shaming? Maybe you're just seeming things.

The fact that these companies are supporting the BDS movement isn't secret, they make it known. So how can he really be shaming them by publicly stating what they already publicly state?

By making the information trivially accessible.

Here in New York City, our (formerly) municipal radio station used to run a program called The John Hour, during which men accused of soliciting prostitution were named on-air. I suppose the idea that Koch was shaming them also "makes no sense", since that information was readily available to anyone willing to comb through arrest reports.

Furthermore, so what? Politicians frequently try to publicly shame groups in order to change their behavior. There is no constitutional protection against being shamed. You couldn't even construct one if you wanted to.

Cain is correct that you have no idea how to construct a sound argument. I mentioned this only because I think it's naive and unsustainable to argue that Cuomo's interest here is only in limiting who the state will do business with--there would be no reason to make the blacklist public if that were the case.

I haven't argued that shaming is unconstitutional, so you're just declaring victory over a straw man. The reason the shaming aspect is so insidious is that it will endure irrespective of the outcome of any constitutional challenge.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is, and I told you why.

Your explanation is wrong, and I've told you why.

I note that you've dropped 'action' and replaced it with 'commerce'

I'm trying to satisfy your linguistic peccadilloes.

but this has little to do with the situation under discussion: the governor of a state taking punitive action against a boycott that entails political expression. A by-other-means suppression of speech.

It has everything to do with the situation under discussion. It doesn't matter if it entails speech. The legal basis on which the decision is actually made is the act of boycotting Israel, which is not speech. That ancillary speech might get affected isn't relevant. Just like it's not relevant that noise ordinances can prevent speech from people using amplifiers, but don't run afoul of the 1st amendment: the mechanism by which government acts is critical. And the mechanism here is NOT speech, but commerce.

Oh, that's just nonsense. If it were making a decision based on commerce, it would make the decision without regard to political expression of its commercial partners. It's making decisions on the basis of what those partners have expressed. That is, on the basis of speech.

Nope. You obviously didn't understand my example.

Well, no, that's just not true. The difference lies primarily in circumstances. For example, if the black customer met the formal dress code, the idea that they ejected him because he didn't will be impossible to sustain before the court.

And how is a formal dress code established? Oh, that's right: through speech!

It is remarkable, because its suppressive of political expression.

No, it isn't. It suppresses the act of boycotting Israel, but that isn't just speech. Everything which IS just speech is left untouched.

Go ahead any make that argument. Back in the real world, few jurists believe that Cuomo's order will survive constitutional challenge.

Evidence?

I do? On what basis, given that I have said literally nothing about their intentions beyond agreeing with you that they are engaged in shaming?

Not true. For example, "Of course BDS is shaming those who contribute to Palestinian subjugation" reveals quite a bit about your opinions of the BDS movement.

By making the information trivially accessible.

It's trivially accessible anyways. Furthermore, do you seriously think any significant number of people are actually going to consult the list that NY state compiles? Yeah, no. Almost nobody is going to dig for it.

Cain is correct that you have no idea how to construct a sound argument.

How would either of you know? You wouldn't.

I mentioned this only because I think it's naive and unsustainable to argue that Cuomo's interest here is only in limiting who the state will do business with--there would be no reason to make the blacklist public if that were the case.

First, that's trivially wrong: the blacklist has to be public if companies are to be given an opportunity to appeal their presence on the list, which they are. Second, I never claimed that this was Cuomo's only interest. You claim that I don't know how to construct a sound argument, and yet this is what you come up with? This isn't only unsound, it's completely irrelevant.

I haven't argued that shaming is unconstitutional

You've argued that it's a problem, but can't explain why.

The reason the shaming aspect is so insidious is that it will endure irrespective of the outcome of any constitutional challenge.

Again: why should we care? Is participating in BDS shameful? Why or why not? If it's not shameful, how can they be shamed? If it is shameful, why is it wrong to shame them? See, this is the sort of stuff you would have to address if you wanted to make a sound argument, but you don't actually know what one looks like.

 

[mumblethrax]

I'm trying to satisfy your linguistic peccadilloes.

These are hardly peccadillos. You're trying to eliminate the inherent speechiness of a political boycott by distinguishing between speech and actions, failing to recognize that speech acts are actions, rendering that distinction spurious. What you should be doing is trying to distinguish between speech and non-speech actions.

It has everything to do with the situation under discussion. It doesn't matter if it entails speech.

A political boycott doesn't just entail speech, it crucially relies on political views. People don't join boycotts just because, but in support of their politics, so the attempt to sever the political expression from the participation is doomed to failure. A boycott is political expression.

Just like it's not relevant that noise ordinances can prevent speech from people using amplifiers, but don't run afoul of the 1st amendment: the mechanism by which government acts is critical.

Well, yes. In that case, the mechanism is content-neutral. In this case, it isn't. It is explicitly an attempt to punish those who hold certain political views.

Nope. You obviously didn't understand my example.

Understood it, but it fails to relay any useful similarity. There is no necessary speech act involved in discriminating against black customers. There is one in taking part in a boycott.

And how is a formal dress code established? Oh, that's right: through speech!

That's...stupid.

No, it isn't. It suppresses the act of boycotting Israel, but that isn't just speech. Everything which IS just speech is left untouched.

This is a shockingly naive and illiberal argument. If I'm arrested because I was speaking in favor of Donald Trump while walking along the sidewalk, it's immaterial that I could legally speak in favor of Donald Trump while standing still.

Evidence?

Among civil liberty groups, NYCLU, and the Center for Constitutional Rights have expressed opposition. Eugene Volokh expresses the view that failing to issue permits to Chick-fil-A based on its political views (a much better analogy than the North Carolina boycott) would be a "blatant First Amendment violation". But you could make the same spurious argument there that applying for a permit to open a store is an action, not speech.

Not true. For example, "Of course BDS is shaming those who contribute to Palestinian subjugation" reveals quite a bit about your opinions of the BDS movement.

No, it reveals quite a bit about what my opinions are about Israeli policy vis-a-vis the occupied territories. What it doesn't do is reveal anything about my opinions about BDS or why those opinions are naive.

It's trivially accessible anyways.

No, it isn't. Compiling a comprehensive list of organizations that support BDS would take some doing, particularly if you want to make that list reliable and up-to-date.

Furthermore, do you seriously think any significant number of people are actually going to consult the list that NY state compiles?

Yes, in that the people who will read it are significant.

How would either of you know?

By reading your flailing attempts to construct arguments.

First, that's trivially wrong: the blacklist has to be public if companies are to be given an opportunity to appeal their presence on the list, which they are.

I don't see why private notification of inclusion on the list wouldn't suffice.

Second, I never claimed that this was Cuomo's only interest.

I know you didn't. I wasn't even talking to you.

You claim that I don't know how to construct a sound argument, and yet this is what you come up with? This isn't only unsound, it's completely irrelevant.

It's relevant to the view that Cuomo is an autocrat who attempts to punish those holding political viewpoints that he does not favor, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss in the context of this thread.

If it's irrelevant, why did you attempt to dispose of the observation with the schoolyard-level argument about how BDS does it too? Because you don't really believe it's irrelevant, but are instead now grasping for straws.

Again: why should we care?

Because public shamings have consequences, irrespective of whether the conduct itself is actually shameful, your "you have nothing to fear unless you've done something shameful" wanking notwithstanding.

 

[Ziggurat]

These are hardly peccadillos. You're trying to eliminate the inherent speechiness of a political boycott by distinguishing between speech and actions, failing to recognize that speech acts are actions, rendering that distinction spurious. What you should be doing is trying to distinguish between speech and non-speech actions.

I've already established all I need to: the criteria used by the state is whether or not a company is taking particular commercial actions, namely boycotting Israel. Any speech component of that boycott is irrelevant, the economic component justifies the state's action. Everybody is free to engage in the speech-only components without consequence.

There is no necessary speech act involved in discriminating against black customers. There is one in taking part in a boycott.

That doesn't matter. Discriminating against blacks could be intended as political speech, but that still offers it no protection even in cases where the speech component can be proven. The speech aspects of the boycott offer it no protection here either.

That's...stupid.

That's... not an argument.

This is a shockingly naive and illiberal argument. If I'm arrested because I was speaking in favor of Donald Trump while walking along the sidewalk, it's immaterial that I could legally speak in favor of Donald Trump while standing still.

It's completely material if the only law in question was a prohibition on walking on that sidewalk.

And that's the case here. While the BDS movement is dominated by people with specific views about Israel, the state's actions don't actually depend upon that when making an evaluation. If you boycott Israel for any reason (for example, you might oppose their support for gay rights), then it still counts.

Furthermore, the state refusing to do business with you is not even remotely equivalent to criminal sanctions.

Among civil liberty groups, NYCLU, and the Center for Constitutional Rights have expressed opposition.

Wow: a leftist advocacy group is supporting leftist advocacy groups. I'm stunned.

Eugene Volokh expresses the view that failing to issue permits to Chick-fil-A based on its political views (a much better analogy than the North Carolina boycott) would be a "blatant First Amendment violation".

Well, yes. But there are two critical differences. First, opposition to Chick-fil-A is based ONLY on political position, not on any commercial actions the company is taking. That's not the case here. Second, denying permits to a company legally entitled to them is not the same as denying state contracts and investments to a company that has no legal entitlements to them. No company has legal entitlement to state contracts.

So Volokh's statements don't apply here, and the NYACLU is hardly representative of legal opinion in general. As I expected, you can't back up your claim.

But you could make the same spurious argument there that applying for a permit to open a store is an action, not speech.

Sure, let's go with that. Applying for a permit is an action, and we can discriminate against any company that engages in that action. So if you apply for a permit, we will deny you a permit because you applied for a permit.

Pure genius.

I don't see why private notification of inclusion on the list wouldn't suffice.

Because the various branches of government need to use it, and those branches have neither the ability nor the authority to use a secret list. It has to be public or the government cannot use it even for its own purposes.

It's relevant to the view that Cuomo is an autocrat who attempts to punish those holding political viewpoints that he does not favor,

Of course he's trying to punish people with opposing political viewpoints. Politicians do that all the time. You can't stop them. All you can do is restrict the means by which they can do so. And these means are permissible.

If it's irrelevant, why did you attempt to dispose of the observation with the schoolyard-level argument about how BDS does it too?

To show that your objections were hypocritical.

Because public shamings have consequences

So what?

irrespective of whether the conduct itself is actually shameful

Well, no, obviously. If it's not shameful, you can't be shamed.

Look at that bastard, helping find loving homes for stray dogs. Booo! Doesn't work.

 

[mumblethrax]

Any speech component of that boycott is irrelevant, the economic component justifies the state's action. Everybody is free to engage in the speech-only components without consequence.

I have no idea why you think that pairing off political expression with "economic components" robs free speech concerns of their force. It's easy to contrive a similar "talking while buying" example that shows how odious this idea is.

That doesn't matter. Discriminating against blacks could be intended as political speech, but that still offers it no protection even in cases where the speech component can be proven. The speech aspects of the boycott offer it no protection here either.

A much better argument than this "Maybe discrimination could be political speech" stuff would be to argue that anti-discrimination laws that target public accommodations necessarily run counter to freedom of association. Which of course they do, a concession which we have made in the interest of maximizing liberty in a country that has an unfortunate history of rank racial discrimination. The harm done in limiting freedom of association is outweighed by the benefit of ensuring that minorities can't be so easily economically marginalized.

Feel free to make a similar case with respect to BDS. I'm sure it will be convincing.

That's... not an argument.

I know. It's a dismissal of a stupid argument. The idea that anti-discrimination laws might be suppressive of dress codes is not worth considering.

It's completely material if the only law in question was a prohibition on walking on that sidewalk.

That's disanalogous. We don't have a general order against boycotts, we have an order against boycotts that express opposition to Israeli policy.

And that's the case here. While the BDS movement is dominated by people with specific views about Israel, the state's actions don't actually depend upon that when making an evaluation. If you boycott Israel for any reason (for example, you might oppose their support for gay rights), then it still counts.

Are you seriously arguing that suppressing boycotts of Israeli policy is content-neutral?

Furthermore, the state refusing to do business with you is not even remotely equivalent to criminal sanctions.

Who said that it was? It's by-other-means suppression of free speech.

Well, yes. But there are two critical differences. First, opposition to Chick-fil-A is based ONLY on political position, not on any commercial actions the company is taking.

If a mayor expresses opposition to Chick-fil-A opening a restaurant, that is opposition to a commercial action. The commercial action of opening a Chick-fil-A.

Second, denying permits to a company legally entitled to them is not the same as denying state contracts and investments to a company that has no legal entitlements to them. No company has legal entitlement to state contracts.

Why do you think this matters? Volokh doesn't argue that denying permits is a problem because there's an entitlement to permits, he argues that it's a blatant suppression of speech.

So Volokh's statements don't apply here, and the NYACLU is hardly representative of legal opinion in general. As I expected, you can't back up your claim.

It's telling that you try to dismiss civil liberties organization as hotbeds of leftism. I can tell you're an expert about the quality of the NYCLU's (no A) legal reasoning. You haven't handled Volokh's concerns at all (I assume you didn't even read them).

Sure, let's go with that. Applying for a permit is an action, and we can discriminate against any company that engages in that action. So if you apply for a permit, we will deny you a permit because you applied for a permit.

Pure genius.

A lazy and intentional misframing. The free speech concern in that case, of course, was in public officials' threats to deny permits based on Chick-fil-A's expressed political values.

Because the various branches of government need to use it, and those branches have neither the ability nor the authority to use a secret list. It has to be public or the government cannot use it even for its own purposes.

No, only the executive branch of New York State's government needs to use it. In fact, only the executive can.

Of course he's trying to punish people with opposing political viewpoints.

This really ought to be the end of the conversation, that he's using the instrument of state to try to punish his political opponents, but of course you try to excuse it.

Politicians do that all the time. You can't stop them. All you can do is restrict the means by which they can do so. And these means are permissible.

Here you're just letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. You can't stop every instance of politicians trying to punish their political opponents, so why even try? Might as well let the un-Israeli Activities Committee convene.

To show that your objections were hypocritical.

Well, you failed hard in that effort.

So what?

So that's why we should be concerned about them?

Well, no, obviously. If it's not shameful, you can't be shamed.

Here's a good example of where your habit of atomizing sentences destroys context. I said is has consequences, irrespective of whether it's actually shameful. You can harmed by the shaming. It's irrelevant whether you feel shame or not.

Look at that bastard, helping find loving homes for stray dogs. Booo! Doesn't work.

I have to admit, this is a great example. Criticizing Israel is, of course, totally uncontroversial and apolitical, just like loving puppies.

But "Look at that bastard, he's a ******-lover! Booo!" has a pretty productive history.

I wonder if it even occurs to you the extent to which you're carrying water for McCarthy.

 

[Ziggurat]

A much better argument than this "Maybe discrimination could be political speech" stuff would be to argue that anti-discrimination laws that target public accommodations necessarily run counter to freedom of association.

That's the argument YOU should be making, not me, since you're the one trying to advocate for discrimination, not me.

I know. It's a dismissal of a stupid argument. The idea that anti-discrimination laws might be suppressive of dress codes is not worth considering.

Good thing, then, that I never made that argument.

Are you seriously arguing that suppressing boycotts of Israeli policy is content-neutral?

This move targets boycotts of Israel, for any reason. You have never shown otherwise.

If a mayor expresses opposition to Chick-fil-A opening a restaurant, that is opposition to a commercial action. The commercial action of opening a Chick-fil-A.

The mayor can express whatever opposition he wants to, he just can't deny them a permit on the grounds that the restaurant they want to open is a Chick-fil-A. Since Chick-fil-A cannot open any restaurant other than a Chick-fil-A, and since nobody but Chick-fil-A can open a Chick-fil-A, that sort of targeting is completely different, and obviously so. Even you cannot be so stupid as to not recognize the difference.

Why do you think this matters?

I've already told you.

Volokh doesn't argue that denying permits is a problem because there's an entitlement to permits, he argues that it's a blatant suppression of speech.

Of course it is. Because what they are being targeted for is a speech-only action. There is no way to frame the targeting in a content-neutral manner. There is in fact a way to frame the targeting of the boycott in a content-neutral manner.

It's telling that you try to dismiss civil liberties organization as hotbeds of leftism. I can tell you're an expert about the quality of the NYCLU's (no A) legal reasoning.

You have provided no reasoning. Furthermore, no matter what their reasoning, it still cannot suffice to support the claim that you made.

You haven't handled Volokh's concerns at all (I assume you didn't even read them).

Sure I have. You're just too clueless to understand.

No, only the executive branch of New York State's government needs to use it. In fact, only the executive can.

Seriously? You're going to try to ding me because I said "branch" and not "department" or "agency"?

This really ought to be the end of the conversation, that he's using the instrument of state to try to punish his political opponents, but of course you try to excuse it.

Find me a politician who never did that. They're a saint.

Here you're just letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. You can't stop every instance of politicians trying to punish their political opponents, so why even try? Might as well let the un-Israeli Activities Committee convene.

You have that exactly backwards. YOU are trying for perfection (no politician can ever punish their opposition), and not accepting good (we merely constrain the means by which they can do so). I've accepted the good, because I know the perfect is impossible.

Here's a good example of where your habit of atomizing sentences destroys context. I said is has consequences, irrespective of whether it's actually shameful. You can harmed by the shaming. It's irrelevant whether you feel shame or not.

I said nothing about whether YOU feel shame, I only said whether or not it's shameful. There is a difference. Can you figure it out?

I have to admit, this is a great example. Criticizing Israel is, of course, totally uncontroversial and apolitical, just like loving puppies.

In other words, it's shameful. So you are finally reluctantly answering my question, even though you're pretending not to.

 

[Beerina]

This distinction is spurious. Speech is an action, which is why the relevant professionals talk about "speech acts".

Speech-as-an-"act", and therefore controllable, is viewed dubiously by the Supreme Court, to put it mildly. They're pretty good at looking at things as they are rather than as how someone describes them.

Long time since, I used to work on a tax auditor assistant system for a state, and they had a lovely item that said a particular tax "isn't an income tax, but a tax proportional to your income." jfc

 

[mumblethrax]

That's the argument YOU should be making, not me, since you're the one trying to advocate for discrimination, not me.

That's just defamatory. I have not advocated discrimination, and you know it.

Good thing, then, that I never made that argument.

You did, when you raised the idea that dress codes are speech in the context of my argument.

This move targets boycotts of Israel, for any reason. You have never shown otherwise.

Amazing. You actually believe that targeting boycotts of Israel, and only boycotts of Israel, is content-neutral.

Content-neutral restrictions are also known as time, place and manner restrictions. So which of these do you think allows the state to specifically target boycotts of Israel?

The mayor can express whatever opposition he wants to, he just can't deny them a permit on the grounds that the restaurant they want to open is a Chick-fil-A. Since Chick-fil-A cannot open any restaurant other than a Chick-fil-A, and since nobody but Chick-fil-A can open a Chick-fil-A, that sort of targeting is completely different, and obviously so. Even you cannot be so stupid as to not recognize the difference.

Assume that I am exactly that stupid. Leaving aside that it isn't true that "nobody but Chick-fil-A can open a Chick-fil-A" (they do franchise, after all), this is not a relevant difference. You don't need to be uniquely affected by an attempt to suppress political expression before that suppression raises concerns.

I've already told you.

Oh, you've asserted that it's different because there's no "entitlement to contract" for your latest ad hoc attempt to find some relevant difference that allows you to endorse punishing BDS, but that's wrong as a matter of law.

Of course it is. Because what they are being targeted for is a speech-only action.

They're being targeted for daring to try to open a store in somebody's district after making their political views known. That isn't "speech only"--that has an "economic component", and thus meets your ill-considered test for when it's ok to suppress political expression.

There is in fact a way to frame the targeting of the boycott in a content-neutral manner.

Go ahead and tell me how you would do that, keeping in mind that targeting all boycotts of Israel is an instafail.

You have provided no reasoning.

I wasn't asked to. If you want to know their reasoning, just google it.

Sure I have. You're just too clueless to understand.

I suppose this has gone on long enough:

"As I noted before, such a viewpoint-based denial of a business permit is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. But that doesn’t seem to bother Alderman Moreno, because his “principles” seem to demand this sort of unconstitutional behavior. As I said, just appalling."

And to dispose of the "but this is different!" stuff:

"But denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996). It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech."

Seriously? You're going to try to ding me because I said "branch" and not "department" or "agency"?

I'm not "dinging" you, I'm responding to what you actually said. If you meant to say something else, that's not on me.

Find me a politician who never did that. They're a saint.

Once again, this "everyone does it" argument (irrespective of whether it's true) does not excuse anyone, and certainly does not excuse especially egregious and almost certainly illegal examples.

You have that exactly backwards. YOU are trying for perfection (no politician can ever punish their opposition), and not accepting good (we merely constrain the means by which they can do so). I've accepted the good, because I know the perfect is impossible.

You argue like a lawyer who has never studied law.

How is saying that politicians shouldn't use the state to punish their political opponents "trying for perfection"? It's only identifying a wrong.

You aren't trying for the good, because you aren't trying at all. You won't even identify this as something to be prevented. It happens all the time, so that must mean it's not worth preventing, even in especially egregious cases.

In other words, it's shameful.

No. It's controversial.

There's nothing shameful about being gay. That doesn't mean that nobody thinks it's shameful. That doesn't mean a gay kid isn't going to be ********** up when shamed by his anti-gay family.

This is just more wanking along the same lines. "If you don't believe you've done anything shameful, you can't be affected by shaming!" The kind of thing that only someone who has only recently become a human being can believe.

 

[mumblethrax]

Speech-as-an-"act", and therefore controllable, is viewed dubiously by the Supreme Court, to put it mildly. They're pretty good at looking at things as they are rather than as how someone describes them.

Hopefully it's not just the courts who take a dim view of these flagrant attempts to define away free speech concerns.