Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Upset-Ad4844 t1_it5sux9 wrote

About time, ACLU.

Since SCOTUS declared that money equals speech, it is an easy argument to make that anti-boycott laws violate the 1st Amendment.


Mist_Rising t1_it5wgwg wrote

This isn't the first time the anti BDS laws have been sued - successfully - in courts including the supreme court. ACLU is the usual challenger.

The "rights" group that hasn't seemingly fought them is unsurprisingly the Anti deformation league (ADL), which claims they do a 'case by case' decision but seem to always decide they approve of the laws barring you from your first amendment to protest Israel.


Upset-Ad4844 t1_it5xe9o wrote

Thanks, Mist. I looked them up on Wikipedia because I'm not very familiar.

It seems they are pretty entrenched as a pro-Israel group and do not even pretend to be apolitical. Is this a fair appraisal?


Mist_Rising t1_it5z8o1 wrote

Close enough, they're what people refer to when they say pro Israeli lobbyists in the US. They're also the opposite of B'Tselem which claims Israeli is apartheid and ADL called the report anti semitic. @_@


[deleted] t1_it64l6r wrote



My_Homework_Account t1_it64v6u wrote

So B'nai B'rith and the ADL are wrong, B'Tselem is right.

Thanks for your support making it apparent on which is which


Mist_Rising t1_it65crp wrote

Lmao I fixed a slight mistake and he really unveiled some things I wasn't expecting. Holy shit calling AI fascist...


Dauvis t1_it7162n wrote

Yeah, they are one of the groups that promote the narrative that criticism of the Israel government policies is antisemitism.


R_V_Z t1_it7y10k wrote

> Since SCOTUS declared that money equals speech

Only when it's convenient, not universally. Otherwise Civil Forfeiture would be considered a violation of the 1st Amendment.


dkran t1_it85yg7 wrote

That’s an interesting argument


[deleted] t1_it638f0 wrote



Mist_Rising t1_it6470a wrote

>The ACLU defended Nazis

They defended the first amendment in this case. Not sure if you're aware of that or deliberately trying to avoid mentioning that was the argument but Skokie was about the right to assemble.


Upset-Ad4844 t1_it697pa wrote

They took a stand back then for the right to free speech.

Free speech is ugly.

Freedom is ugly when people disagree.

That's why the right to free speech so often seems self-contradictory, at times hurtful.

It takes a lot of guts in the belief that it is ultimately for the best of all people in the long run.

Thanks for your response.


SacrificialPwn t1_it67f18 wrote

They defend civil liberties, not the person/group. A protected right to free speech is no longer protected nor a right if the state can determine what's allowed to be spoken or believed. I'd rather have a world where people can voice support or opposition to a country, than one where you are penalized for voicing either