Legal Expert: ACLU Misrepresenting Senate Bill Against Israel Boycotts – TheTower.org

In its criticism ofSenate legislation against anti-Israel boycotts, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has falsely described the bill as an unconstitutional attack on free speech, a legal scholar arguedin The Washington Post on Thursday.

The ACLUs claims that Israel Anti-Boycott Actinhibits the free expression of ideas areas weak as they are dramatic, argued Eugene Kontorovich, a law professor at Northwestern University.

The new legislation is actuallya minor updating of a venerable statute,namely the 1977 Export Administration Act, which prohibits U.S. entities from participating in or cooperating with international boycotts organized by foreign countries, Kontorovich explained. For example, telling a Saudi company, You know, we dont happen to do business with the Zionist entity would be prohibited.

While the 1977 act used broad language, it wasexplicitly aimed at the Arab states boycott of Israel,Kontorovich noted. The law has beenupheld against First Amendment challenges in the yearsafter its passage and has not raised any constitutional concerns in nearly four decades since, he added.

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is a necessary extension of the 1977 measures, Kontorovich wrote, because United Nations agencies have begun the process of organizing boycotts of Israel:

Several United Nations agencies have initiated secondary boycotts of Israel that is, boycotting non-Israeli companies because of their connection to the Jewish state. In support of such secondary boycotts, the U.N. Human Rights Council is preparing a blacklist of Israeli-linked companies (using such a broad definition of supporting settlements that the blacklist could sweep in any Israeli-linked firm).

The UNHRCs efforts to boycott Israel are unprecedented, given that the Human Rights Council clearly does not regard businesses supporting settlements to be a human rights issue except when Israel is involved. (Kontorovich argued this point before the UNHRC last month.)

In particular, Kontorovich took issue with the ACLUs charge that the bill would penalize someone for expressing support of anti-Israel boycotts:

There is nothing in the bill to sustain such a criticism. The old law already forbids support for foreign state boycotts of Israel, and the many regulations enacted pursuant to the law already define support to be limited to certain specified actions that go well beyond merely speech support. The new bill does not change or alter the meaning of support. It simply clarifies the list of foreign boycotts covered by the law.

He pointed out that the current laws ban on support of the Arab League boycott has never been used to punish opponents of Israel simply for expression. The expansion of the list of covered boycotts in the new bill wouldnot make it any easier to go after boycott activists.’

In short, Kontorovich wrote, the proposed statute is a timely action to expand the list of prohibited foreign boycotts with which it is forbidden to comply. The legislation does nothing to restrict anti-Israel expressions or even local BDS activity. Anyone who wishes to express their opposition to Israel through boycotts isentirely free to do so.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D Md.), the chief sponsor of the legislation, and Sen. Rob Portman (R Ohio) alsorejected the ACLUs criticism of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, writing earlier this month:

Individuals who actively avoid purchasing goods and services because of their own political viewpoint would not be subject to the bill. Similarly, the bill does not regulate civil society organizations who are critical of Israeli policies or prevent them from speaking in favor of BDS. The legislation does not encourage or compel persons to do business with Israel, nor does it punish individuals or companies from refusing to do business with Israel based on their own political beliefs, for purely pragmatic reasons, or for no reason stated at all. Any suggestion that this bill creates potential criminal or civil liability for these actions is false.

Josh Block, president and CEO of The Israel Project, noted this week in The Hill that the ACLUs opposition to the Israel Anti-Boycott Act comes asa senior member of the organization tweeted that Israeli leaders were exploiting anti-Semitism for political purposes and that anti-Zionism is not linked toanti-Semitisma position rejected by top Jewish leaders and diverse public figuresincluding former British Chief RabbiJonathan Sacks, Anti-Defamation League CEOJonathan Greenblatt,Pope Francis, Minority Leader Sen.Chuck Schumer, French PresidentEmmanuel Macron, and Secretary-General of the UNAntnio Guterres.

It is appalling to see one of the longest-standing and most venerated civil rights organizations in our countrys history disseminating misinformation, fomenting anti-Semitism and lauding hatemongers,Blockobserved.

The Israel Project publishes The Tower.

[Photo:randomwithRon/ YouTube ]

More here:

Legal Expert: ACLU Misrepresenting Senate Bill Against Israel Boycotts – TheTower.org

Related Post

July 29, 2017   Posted in: Boycott Israel |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."