Marco Rubio's Israel anti-boycott law is an attack on free speech
Senator Marco Rubio, the little Marco in the vocabulary of Presidential candidate Donald Trump (now POTUS), has once again shown where his true loyalty lies. He is an unabashed promoter of the apartheid regime of Israel. See the report from Joel Mathis below:
=======
These are divisive times. But Americans should be able to agree on at least one issue: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) shouldn't be the arbiter of what political expression is or isn't allowed in America.
Rubio is leading the effort to pass the "Combating BDS Act," a law that would give the federal imprimatur to state and local governments that pass laws against giving government contracts to individuals and companies that boycott the State of Israel in opposition to its policies regarding the Palestinian territories.
That act — part of a larger package of measures regarding Middle East policy — suffered a setback this week, thanks to a Democratic filibuster. But Rubio and the anti-boycott movement aren't done.
"Opposition to our bill isn't about free speech," Rubio tweeted Tuesday. "Companies are FREE to boycott Israel. But local & state governments should be FREE to end contracts with companies that do."
A good rule in politics: If you have to say a proposed law isn't about free speech, it's probably about free speech.
=======
These are divisive times. But Americans should be able to agree on at least one issue: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) shouldn't be the arbiter of what political expression is or isn't allowed in America.
Rubio is leading the effort to pass the "Combating BDS Act," a law that would give the federal imprimatur to state and local governments that pass laws against giving government contracts to individuals and companies that boycott the State of Israel in opposition to its policies regarding the Palestinian territories.
That act — part of a larger package of measures regarding Middle East policy — suffered a setback this week, thanks to a Democratic filibuster. But Rubio and the anti-boycott movement aren't done.
"Opposition to our bill isn't about free speech," Rubio tweeted Tuesday. "Companies are FREE to boycott Israel. But local & state governments should be FREE to end contracts with companies that do."
A good rule in politics: If you have to say a proposed law isn't about free speech, it's probably about free speech.
The courts, at least, seem to disagree with Rubio. Federal
courts have blocked anti-BDS laws in Arizona and
Kansas, the latter of which required any individuals and companies
that contract with the state to certify they are "not currently engaged in
a boycott of Israel." Those rulings followed a long legal history: The Supreme Court
ruled in the 1990s that local governments can't fire contractors for
protected political speech.
That's a good thing. Boycotts, after all, are a
long-established political tool, both in the United States and
abroad. Perhaps most famously, Martin Luther King Jr. led a boycott in
Montgomery, Alabama to protest the racist policies of the bus service in that
city after Rosa
Parks refused to give her seat to a white passenger. In just the
last few years, conservatives
have boycotted Nike — even burning their shoes in protest — in
response to an ad that featured Colin Kaepernick, the quarterback known for his
protest against police brutality, while liberals have mounted boycott campaigns
against companies that
do business with the NRA or advertise on
Fox News shows. There are even boycotts against Chik-fil-A.
Why should Israel be off limits?
The country, after all, has thrived in its modern
incarnation for more than 70 years located in a pretty hostile Middle Eastern
neighborhood. It has nuclear arms and is the recipient of billions of dollars
in U.S. military aid. It seems resilient enough to survive a decision by a few
Americans to spend their dollars elsewhere.
You don't have to weigh the merits of Israeli policy,
though, to think Rubio's bill is bad. The ACLU, for example, is fighting
against anti-BDS laws but hasn't taken a position for or against these boycotts
themselves. The argument isn't about whether such boycotts are good, wise, or
just. It's about whether state, local, and federal governments in the United
States should be able to punish people — like an attorney who
provides legal services for poor defendants, or a teacher who
helps other teachers get ready for the classroom — for making the
political decision to boycott something.
"Public officials cannot use the power of public office
to punish views they don't agree with," the ACLU said in a blog post.
"That's the kind of authoritarian power our Constitution is meant to
protect against."
That's exactly right. Certainly, Rubio isn't against
boycotts per se: The bill, he explained
in a tweet this week, "allows local & state govt's to
boycott the boycotters by ending contracts with companies that give in to these
Anti-Israel demands." He wants to punish Americans not for doing the wrong
thing, but for thinking the wrong thoughts.
Comments
Post a Comment