this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
247 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19165 readers
2636 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The new bill comes after Andrew Bailey vowed to investigate companies pulling business from X, formerly Twitter over hate speech.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 162 points 11 months ago (6 children)

That sounds like the government is trying to interfere with free speech and the free market.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 55 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Definitely. Republicans are big fans of "let the market decide" and big opponents of "big government dictating what companies should do" until the market decides against them. Then, suddenly, the Republicans are big fans of the government deciding what companies should do and opponents of the free market.

The levels of hypocrisy never fail to amaze me.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The supposed love of free markets and things like "states rights" is just a cover for their racism and their greed and their insatiable desire to rule over others.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In-groups to protect, out-groups to bind, always.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 12 points 11 months ago

I am pretty sure this is pure virtue signaling that will be overturned. The article mentions that “Israel boycott” laws have been upheld, but I’m unsure of either the effectiveness of those laws (ie what has to be demonstrated if the entity doesn’t say they’re not entering a contract for political reasons but rather has another justification) or the applicability (since my guess is that the BDS stuff falls under some stretch of the government being the only entity allowed to effect foreign policy decisions, but I’m not sure of the actual legal basis and I’m too tired to research it at the moment).

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

It shows the right never cared about FREEZED PEACH. What they want is a platform like Xitter to be run by a twerp like Space Karen in such a way as to maximize liberal "ownage" and to platform Nazis, and, ideally, give people no way to completely opt out of their dreck.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 82 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Setting aside constitutional issues, think about how insane and delusional you have to be to decide that the fact that a significant number of people are protesting your policies means that protesting needs to be ~~prohibited~~ punished.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Bill Text: https://www.senate.mo.gov/24info/pdf-bill/intro/SB1061.pdf

It doesn't prohibit protesting, it basically says that if you engage in "economic boycott" (a term which about a third of the bill is spent defining) then the State of Missouri cannot use you as a vendor, and any contracts with them are null and void.

So less prohibiting protesting and more not buying stuff from protesters. Probably still a 1A violation, though from an odd enough angle I'm not sure.

[–] EmoBean@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Wonder how that would work out given the number of firearms vendors that actively boycott liberal things like budlight. Police departments are going to be all outta ammo.

[–] mercano@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Well, according to the Citizens United decision, corporations are people and money is speech, so a company deciding with who they’re going to spend money is protected speech.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Sounds like the anti-BDS laws. Somehow that's a thing, and I'm not sure how that's even allowed.

Also, I was amused that BDS also stands for "Biden Derangement Syndrome". In the years before Denver Post closed their comments, they ramped their censorship way up and for some reason "BDS" would trigger their nanny-filter. I'm supposing even the mention of the boycott of Israel was bridge too far for the nannies at Denver Post.

[–] athos77@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago

"Well, it brings the subject into view and we hate hearing about it (cry harder, libs!) so we'll just stop people from doing the thing that brings it into view and annoys us." - conservative snowflakes, probably

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 53 points 11 months ago (6 children)

"No one should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding." "No company should be allowed to refuse to give another company millions of dollars a month in advertising income just because they began vocally supporting nazism"

These are two thoughts that simultaneously bounce around in GOP politicians' heads. They seem to be contradictory ideas until you realize that they are simply ALWAYS in favor of harming the right people and do not give the slightest shit about applying the same rules to everyone if those rules harm the wrong people.

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

The only principle the GOP has is whatever they think will win them the current argument. Asking for any ideological consistency from them is tilting at windmills.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago (20 children)

First Amendment violation. Won't go anywhere.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 39 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Except that they can pass the bill, and enforce the bill, and the legislation stays active and in place until someone with standing files suit, goes to court (taking on the time and money expense of doing so), goes through the appeals process (and we know that the State could also appeal, so either way it goes), on and on until it gets to SCOTUS. All of which can take years, during which unconstitutional fuckery is foisted upon the good citizens of Missouri.

This is the standard that's been set: do whatever the fuck you want, and abuse the judiciary to get away with it as long as possible.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago (2 children)

And, you're putting a lot of faith in the SCOTUS to actually do the right thing.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I was describing the best case scenario.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Yeah the majority of SCOTUS has basically decreed that if an issue didn't exist at the time of the founding of the Constitution then it cannot apply.

It's very convenient when you can chuck out a solid 150 years of precedent and just pretend the intentions of a bunch of dead people. Fuck ethics and actually engaging with the wording of the law to dicern it's intention amirite?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] frustratedphagocytosis@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Last i checked there's already a law like this in Texas that forbids businesses who work with the state from boycotting Israel, oil and gas companies, or gun rights groups

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 31 points 11 months ago

“Let the free market will decide”

“No, not like that

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago

If a legislator tries to pass something so blatantly obviously against the constitution, they should be thrown in jail and barred from ever writing another law again.

Yes, I know that'd put a lot of politicians in jail. Doesn't that put a smile on your face, too?

[–] dtjones@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

A lot of people in the comments are saying how this won't hold up or how unconstitutional it is but 35 fucking states have already passed anti-bds (boycotts, divestment*, and sanctions) laws that do the same thing as this bill but Israel. If the politicians are sufficiently bribed enough, they won't care what the laws actually are.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 10 points 11 months ago

That just means 35 states have passed unconstitutional laws about Israel.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 26 points 11 months ago

That's called SMALL GOVERNMENT!

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

So, I guess freedom of association is not a thing with the teabaggers.

And what about the FREEZED PEACH? I thought Space Karen and his fanbois wanted a "marketplace of ideas" and whatnot?

[–] teft@startrek.website 17 points 11 months ago (4 children)

How much you want to bet they’ll still be cool with a conservative business boycotting LGBT supporting businesses?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] osarusan@kbin.social 16 points 11 months ago

Something something sincerely held beliefs.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Thanks a lot, Supreme Court.

You've made the christians into a protected class.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 months ago

So the party of small government strikes again…

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I’ll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missouri.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So that goes both ways, right? Right wing businesses can't refuse to deal with companies just because they are "woke," right?

Time for someone to form Woke Antifa Rainbows, Inc and then sue right wing companies for refusing to do business with them.

[–] n1ckn4m3@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It doesn't actually, the law is written specifically to disallow people from boycotting companies that destroy the environment, hate LGBTQ, actively promote anti-LGBTQ ideals, etc., but it DOESN'T stop the alternate -- the right can still boycott people who support LGBTQ rights, people who support working to fight climate change, etc. Just another one-sided law attempting to illegalize entirely legal business decisions by the left while allowing the right to continue saying it's OK to deny people wedding cakes if you hate the gays.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I figured as much. When people (or companies) say "I don't want to be associated with statements like this," the right's response depends on whose statements they are. If they are statements from the right, then it's "cancel culture" and must be banned. If they are statements from the left, then it's just Free Speech and no action against those saying it is allowed for any reason.

It's such an obvious double standard.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Conservatism is not a protected class. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone based on their political orientation.

We have a moral duty to not engage in business with bigots, misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, xenophobes, antisemites and racists. Conservatism should be openly excluded from polite society without fear. It is the moral thing to do.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Well, this law is going to backfire.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 11 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Even if this somehow passed... from a business perspective: Pull out of Missouri and stop offering services to 6 million people, or tell tens or hundreds of millions of other people that you're supporting hate speech? Hmm..

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago

They could always say that they don't see the business relationship being profitable and just shut up afterwards.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

Missouri is the poorest and least consequential state in America. They have nothing at all to offer the country and have no say in anything that happens outside of their own shitty, unimportant borders. Even if this passes, it won't matter. What companies are even HQd in Missouri?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago

here goes that republican freedom again

[–] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

So, you wouldn't be allowed to avoid doing business with:

a) Directly environmentally destructive companies
b) Gun-related companies
c) Companies that refuse to do anything about their global warming emissions
d) Companies that make racist and/or sexist promotion decisions
e) Medical companies that refuse to provide full reproductive and/or trans care
f) Companies that do business with any of the above

Nice list of priorities. You can boycott a company for trying to fix the environment but not for destroying it. You can boycott a company for trying to prevent gun violence but not for promoting it. You can boycott a company for trying to help fight against global warming but not for contributing to it. You can boycott a company for fighting against racism and sexism but not for enforcing it. You can boycott a company for providing reproductive or trans care but not for refusing to.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thann@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Free speech is when the government punishes you for your opnion

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

The headline is misleading. According to the text of the article, the law actually only bans companies that do business with the state from engaging in such boycotts. If you're company refuses to give ad money to Musk, then you don't get any state contracts.

I doubt the law is unconstitutional, but it is pretty stupid. Larger companies that care about their image enough to refuse to advertise on hate filled networks are also going to be the companies that provide the best services at the best prices. The state would be stuck using smaller companies that would charge them more and provide lower quality services.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 13 points 11 months ago

Compelled speech is a first amendment violation. Telling a company they need to take positive political action to score a state contract is undoubtedly a violation of the 1st.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Not only is the law definitely unconstitutional, it's virtually unenforceable. A company can easily make a statement that they refuse to give money to another company for endless reasons. It's just hollow virtue signalling, something conservatives excel at.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›