Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Proponents of anti-BDS laws claim that BDS is a form of antisemitism, and so such laws legislate against hate speech. Opponents claim that Israel's supporters are engaging in lawfare by lobbying for anti-BDS laws that infringe upon the right to free speech, and conflating anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel with antisemitism. [2]
The Israel Anti-Boycott Act (IABA) (H.R. 1697; S. 720) was a proposed anti-BDS law [2] and amendment to the Export Administration Act of 1979 designed to allow U.S. states to enact laws requiring contractors to sign pledges promising not to boycott any goods from Israel, or their contracts would be terminated, and to make it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years ...
Writing in support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions momvement in 2013, American-Palestinian journalist Ramzy Baroud stated that "Beit Sahour took the strategy of civil disobedience — refusing to pay taxes, boycotting the Israeli occupation and all of its institutions — to a whole new level," calling the town a "focal point of ...
[15] [22] In the letters, he stated that about 30–50 members planned to demonstrate outside of the Village Hall from about 3–3:30 p.m. and they planned to hold up signs demanding free speech for white men, including the phrases "White Free Speech", "Free Speech for White Americans", and "Free Speech for the White Men". [15] [22]
Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. [1] While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The 2002 decision Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Assoc., Inc. upheld an Illinois telemarketing anti-fraud law against claims that it was a form of prior restraint, affirming consumer protection against misrepresentation was a valid government interest justifying a free speech exception for false claims made in that context.
(The Center Square) – Whether Illinois should be enjoined from enforcing the state’s gun and magazine ban starting Monday is now up to a federal appeals court. Illinois enacted the Protect ...