That sounds like an attempt to ban political expression that is certainly protected by the First Amendment.

Wyden knows such a bill wouldn't pass specifically because of its unconstitutionality. This was about picking up media coverage by throwing red meat at voters.

Congress has been in a state of deadlock for too long to pass any actual laws, so this type of performative theater ahead of midterm elections is what passes for statesmanship.

That's awfully generous. He co-sponsored a bad law that he didn't actually want to see passed?

He may definitely want to see it passed. But elected officials should not be engaging in pushing bills that won't pass their first legal challenge.

Similar bills have already passed legal challenges https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/eighth-circuit-upholds-...

I think it's a bad law and he's making a big mistake. I'm still a fan though.

Thanks for the link. Scary to see that the state is re-drafting these laws specifically to find loopholes in the constitutional definitions of freedom of speech. Check out this other loophole:

> The act does not apply to contracts worth less than $1,000, or to companies that offer to provide the goods or services for at least 20 percent less than the lowest price quoted by a business that has complied with the certification requirement.

So, a contractor if free to boycott as long as they cost the taxpayer a little bit less.

It’s already pretty much the law. You can submit your complaints to the Office of Anti-Boycott Compliance [1].

Foreign governments can’t force government contractors to comply with boycotts. This bill AFAIK simply closes the loophole of Palestine not technically being a foreign government.

[1]: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac

That's not the same thing. This isn't about foreign government demands, it's about US states being legally able to discriminate against contractors who participate in BDS. (Edit: in fact it's about contractors who refuse to sign a pledge that they won't ever participate in BDS)

Well established ban, since you cannot discriminate anymore or voluntarily associate anymore as a business

Pobody's Nerfect

This is a far cry from an "oopsie"

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic. How is that acceptable and democratic?

It already in exists in the form of Anti-BDS laws. 35 states already have them

>Anti-BDS laws

These would seem to contravene the First Amendment.

And? The US doesn’t work the way you think it does. It operates illegally and protects its powers over people. As a factual observation. What then

I am being sarcastic ;) the guy is supposed to be a freedom fighter for privacy/security but is trying to ban boycotts, the most basic form of protest, and integral to US democracy.

Your previous comment came off very genuine. If clarity of statement is important, it might be worth ensuring your actual intent is made unambiguously clear somewhere in message, if that message is otherwise ironic or sarcastic.

He's only banning the 'bad' boycotts. Right? /s

Well, apparently, that's how a good politician works. Just like a good software engineer would have not one, but two backups, at different locations.

It's similar to what economists say about not pulling all your eggs in the same basket.

close enough

I must add that "good politics" are all about compromise.

In my somewhat grim perspective the best outcome of good politics means none of the constitutents are happy and none are desperately angry.

politics are all about the completely bland and boring averaging

but I come from a land of historically terrible, awful politicians and leaders

Well it's pretty unlikely such a law would stand up in any court even small claim's court

Uh it's already the law in dozens of states. The Arkansas law was challenged, but upheld by the appeals court and SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

I'd rather not test this theory, just like I'd rather not test the constitutionality of a law that makes accessing TikTok a felony.

... Also, as sibling commenters pointed out, anti-BDS gag laws are everywhere in this country, and have yet to be struck down.

If you require all your allies to be perfect people...

... you won't be left with many allies.

You can literally use this to excuse any behavior

True, which is why it must be balanced with realistic judgements about the people you support and knowing what issues are truly important compared to what the current buzz is telling us is important.

True, but you can also refuse to excuse any behavior, nor give even an inch, and then look around after a while and realize you've won the wrong contest. You won the never giving an inch and remaining morally unblemished contest, and lost the making allies and getting anything done contest.

I mean wanting to put people in jail for using their first amendment rights is kind of big deal.

and yet a leading candidate for the highest office is promoting exactly this, and has a large percentage of the population in full support.

As long as you are putting “them” in jail, it doesn’t matter