ER Editor: We also recommend Paul Craig Roberts‘ piece on this, referencing Abby Martin‘s (pictured) opposition to Georgia state law. Of note:
Think about this for a moment. More than half of the 50 states that comprise the United States have passed laws that are clear violations of the US Constitution. Moreover, these 28 states have imposed censorship on behalf of a foreign country. Americans have gags stuck in their mouths because 28 state governments put the interest of Israel higher than the First Amendment of the US Constitution. When government itself is opposed to free speech, what becomes of democracy and accountable government?
Why would 28 states legislate against the US Constitution? One explanation is that the state governments were bought by the Israel Lobby with money under the table, by promises of political campaign donations, or by threats of financing rival candidates. How else do we explain 28 state governments imposing censorship on behalf of a foreign country?
Abby Martin is one person who will not stand for it. She has brought a lawsuit that—if the US Supreme Court is still a protector of the First Amendment—will result in the 28 state laws and Trump’s executive order being overturned. The protection of Israel against boycotts parallels state laws passed in the 1950s that prevented Martin Luther King’s movement from boycotting businesses that practiced racial segregation. These laws were overturned by the Supreme Court.
The outcome of Abby Martin’s suit will tell us whether the US Constitution is still a living document.
Netanyahu Boasts That He Destroyed Free Speech in America
Anti-boycott laws of the Old South were used against Martin Luther King Jr. and other activists in the civil rights movement to keep African Americans subordinate and segregated. The right to boycott establishments over civil rights was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1982 in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware.
Some 28 U.S. states have passed laws prohibiting the boycott of Israel and are attempting to punish this action by denying such individuals state contracts.
Gilad Erdan is the head of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, which has spearheaded the attempt to undermine the U.S. Constitution and make criticizing Israeli policy illegal in the United States. This effort is allegedly being aided by Mossad, Israeli intelligence. Mossad intensively spies on Washington, D.C., and may have compromising information on U.S. politicians.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, is the main instrument of such Israeli policy pushes in the United States, and has never been forced to register as the agent of a foreign state, as U.S. law requires.
Photo by Kobi Gideon/GPO via Getty Images
It should be noted that the anti-boycott laws do not only punish companies. Most states treat individuals providing them services as companies categorized as “sole proprietors.” University professors invited to speak on campus in the states with these horrid laws have been asked to sign statements saying they won’t boycott Israel before being allowed to speak. These procedures are the most dangerous assault on free speech in the United States since the McCarthy era.
Journalist Abby Martin has just launched a lawsuit against the University of Georgia for cancelling her speaking appearance when she declined to sign a pledge saying she would not boycott Israel.
I wrote recently that “in the past 23 months, Palestinians in Gaza have been demonstrating weekly, and Israeli army snipers have shot down over 8,000 them, leaving many crippled for life and killing over 200. Most of those shot were peaceful demonstrators posing no danger, who simply came into a zone the Israeli army arbitrarily declared off limits, even though it was inside Gaza. Victims include children, women, medics, journalists and other nonviolent noncombatants.
Photo by THOMAS COEX/AFP via Getty Images
Criticizing these policies, which everyone concerned with human rights in the world does, is not equivalent to disliking Jews. The only reason the question even comes up is that the Israel lobbies and the organized-crimelike Likudniks have attempted to deflect any obstacle to their colonization drive by smearing human rights activists as bigots for daring oppose their monstrous plans.
As I have noted, “not only are no sanctions being placed on Israel for these naked war crimes, but the lawmakers in the U.S. are willing to take large scissors to the U.S. Constitution on behalf of the Likud Party, protecting it from any civil society attempt to hold it accountable.”
In response to such war crimes, including the Israeli colonization of the Palestinian West Bank, civil society around the world has adopted the tactics of boycott, sanctions and divestment (BDS) against Israel. It has especially resorted to these tactics precisely because powerful world governments refuse to intervene to stop Israeli crimes against humanity.
I earlier reported that “Ben Kesslen at NBC News reported that the University of Arkansas-Pulaski Technical College cancelled their ads with Little Rock’s Arkansas Times because owner Alan Leveritt won’t sign a pledge that his business does not boycott Israel. Leveritt doesn’t boycott Israel, but he considers a state law passed by Arkansas and 27 other states to be unconstitutional, and he would rather risk his business than surrender his First Amendment rights.”
The loss of the state contract was devastating to the newspaper. It is important to underline that Alan Leveritt does not boycott Israel. He simply refuses to sign a pledge that restricts his freedom of speech and which is imposed by the state government, on First Amendment grounds. The Arkansas Times is a centrist newspaper in a conservative state, so that Netanyahu has actually managed to reach into the heart of America and strike at its media diversity by shredding the U.S. Constitution (on which state constitutions are based when it comes to freedom of speech).
In a disgusting miscarriage of justice, the anti-boycott law was upheld by a lower court in Arkansas on the grounds that a boycott is neither expressive nor speech, which contradicts the precedent of NAACP vs. Claiborne Hardware (1982). The appeal is now before the 8th Circuit Court.
Economic boycotts have been part and parcel of American political striving for liberty from the beginning. I have three words for you: Boston Tea Party. What do you think the American colonists were doing when they tossed 342 chests of British tea into the harbor? They were boycotting, divesting and sanctioning the injustice of King George III.
Several federal judges have already found state laws that attempt to punish companies or individuals for boycotting Israel unconstitutional, in Kansas, Arizona and Texas.
When Kansas fired Mennonite school teacher Esther Koontz from a program to train other teachers over her refusal to certify that she doesn’t boycott Israel (she does), the ACLU took the case to court and a federal judge struck down the Kansas statute. The state legislature then reformulated it so that it only affected big businesses under certain circumstances, which is also unconstitutional, but made it a little unlikely that the law would affect anyone.
Netanyahu tried to deny a Mennonite school teacher her job.
The anti-boycott laws are unconstitutional. They are also racist, aimed at keeping brown Palestinians down.
This piece originally appeared on Informed Comment
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.