Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's been an anti-boycott law on the books since the 70's. US Dept. of Commerce monitors it. It's a violation for a company to participate in a boycott of any country not currently sanctioned as such by the Government.
It's sort of dumb to extend it to an individual, but it's not really that unheard of.
Its unheard other than some nebulous publication posted called worldeer.com which doesn't seem to exist. Two states have already lost in court, I expect more so I am going to go with the court decision. Besides if what you indicated is true then why ask allegiance to Israel.
Based upon the wording of the law this isn’t a “freedom of speech” issue. As a public school employee she is also a state employee and thus subject to the laws and regulations on state contracts. As a private citizen she’s free to be critical of Israel but she should be careful of her language as they may go into a hatred towards Jews. As an employee this would show a hatred towards people of a certain religion/culture who may be students under her care. This could reflect a conflict of interest and may warrant some form of disciplinary actions which may include termination of employment. Such actions isn’t a violation of freedom of speech as she is not being arrested nor tried in court for her words of protest. Her employment would be ended and she free to find employment elsewhere.
Based upon the wording of the law this isn’t a “freedom of speech” issue. As a public school employee she is also a state employee and thus subject to the laws and regulations on state contracts. As a private citizen she’s free to be critical of Israel but she should be careful of her language as they may go into a hatred towards Jews. As an employee this would show a hatred towards people of a certain religion/culture who may be students under her care. This could reflect a conflict of interest and may warrant some form of disciplinary actions which may include termination of employment. Such actions isn’t a violation of freedom of speech as she is not being arrested nor tried in court for her words of protest. Her employment would be ended and she free to find employment elsewhere.
She wasn't doing anything regarding hatred of Jews. she just refused to sign an agreement indicating she wouldn't support a boycott Israel.
She is being required to promise not to boycott products produced in Israel.
What products do people purchase from Israel?
That's not how it works. Israel export diamonds, electronics, medicines, etc. The BDS movement is showing private and public institutions how Israel do not respect UN calls for a better treatment of Palestinians, and humans rights violation in an effort to make them boycott Israel. That is what is being prevented; make it illegal to support BDS. At the personal level everyone is free to purchase or boycott worthless pieces of carbons that Jews polish and sell for exorbitant prices, Israeli brands, etc.
In Israel, blasphemy is covered by Articles 170 and 173 of the penal code. (The code does not specify which religion.)
Insult to religion
170. If a person destroys, damages or desecrates a place of worship or any object which is held sacred by a group of persons, with the intention of reviling their religion, or in the knowledge that they are liable to deem that act an insult to their religion, then the one is liable to three years' imprisonment.
Injury to religious sentiment
173. If a person does any of the following, then the one is liable to one year's imprisonment:
(1) One publishes a publication that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;
(2) One voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.
The law is traced back to the British High Commission "The Abuse and Vilification (religious invective) Order No. 43 of 1929", enacted in efforts to suppress the 1929 Palestine riots. The order contained the language: "Any person who utters a word or sound in public or within earshot of any other person that may be or is intended to offend his religious sensitivities or faith can expect to be found guilty and eligible for a one-year jail sentence."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
