Why anti-boycott, divestment and sanctions laws are moral and constitutional
The fate of a law is never sealed with its passage. Even the best of laws can fall prey to misinterpretation and skewed enforcement. Such was the case in Dickinson, Texas, where government officials falsely interpreted legislation prohibiting state entities from doing business with organizations and companies that support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
Blame it on a lack of reading comprehension skills, incompetent legal advice or trusting the ACLU. For whatever reason, Dickinson officials are requiring individuals to sign an application for a hurricane relief grant that reads in part:
“By executing this Agreement below, the Applicant verifies that the Applicant: (1) does not boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of this Agreement.”
Just one problem. There is nothing in Texas House Bill 89 that prohibits individuals from supporting or participating in BDS activity.
But this is America. And we never pass up an opportunity to promote a political agenda and paint those who disagree with us as being enemies of freedom.
Currently, 22 states have passed legislation prohibiting them from doing business with, and/ or investing in, companies that participate in the BDS campaign that singles out the Jewish state. Since 1977, U.S. law has permitted civil penalties against U.S. corporations that participate in boycott requests from foreign countries against U.S. allies, or that make such requests themselves. There is nothing in any of these laws that restricts free speech or penalizes individuals or organizations for boycotting or advocating against Israel.
Northwestern University School of Law professor Eugene Kontorovich addressed the constitutional concerns of free speech raised by the ACLU and other critics of anti-BDS legislation: