反BDS法
參考 > 引用

↑  哈佛法律評論 2020: Such logic might have required the antiapartheid movement to address not just injustice by white South Africans, but also abuses by the black African National Congress leadership or by other African countries. ... Iran, ..., self-defines based on religion, yet current U.S. refusals to buy from Iran do not give rise to anti-Shia religious discrimination claims
↑  BDS運動德國抗議信 2018: The fact is that more than 40 Jewish organizations around the world advocate for BDS and oppose equating criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism. The Auschwitz survivor Esther Bejerano, who was a member of the Auschwitz Orchestra, also supports BDS
↑  猶太虛擬圖書館: To date, 35 states have adopted laws, executive orders or resolutions that are designed to discourage boycotts against Israel.
↑  哥倫比亞國際法雜誌 2018-05: Though the specific provisions of anti-BDS laws vary widely, they have taken two primary forms: (1) contract-focused laws that condition the receipt of government contracts on an entity certifying that it is not boycotting and will not boycott Israel; and (2) investment-focused laws that mandate public investment funds to divest from entities involved in boycotts of Israel.
↑  合法支持巴勒斯坦 2020: 紐約時報 editorial board criticized the Israel Anti-Boycott Act as "clearly part of a widening attempt to silence one side of the debate." The Los Angeles Times editorial board was unequivocal that boycott and divestment campaigns are protected by the First Amendment.
↑  布魯金斯學會 2020-01-08.
↑  猶太當今 2019-11-22.
↑  前進 2020-08-31.
↑  The Tower 2015.
1 2  今日美國 2019.
1 2  Vice新聞 2019-03-19.
↑  巴勒斯坦研究期刊 2020-02-01，第76頁.
↑  中東監察者 2020.
↑  哈佛法律評論 2020: As nine states argued in an amicus brief: it is "intuitively obvious . . . [that] targeting a particular group (and those associating with them) for the intentional infliction of economic harm is discrimination, by definition," and BDS does just that.
↑  哈佛法律評論 2020: Because there is no specific test for whether a consumer boycott constitutes discrimination, courts can instead look to two types of discrimination widely recognized in existing law: discriminatory intent and disparate impact discrimination.
↑  哈佛法律評論 2016: And because political boycotts are directed at issues of public concern, they are protected activities that "rest[] on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values."
↑  芝加哥每日法律公報 2019-05-01: Those defending the constitutionality of the laws, like Kontorovich, maintain the trial court misinterpreted Claiborne to convey First Amendment protections to all activities associated with boycotts. "The actual issue at hand [in Claiborne] involves actual boycott organizing activities, basically calling on people to boycott and promoting a boycott, that is speech," he said. "The state can still get contracts under the state law if they say 'We hate Israel and we think Israel should be boycotted.' … They are entirely entitled to contract with the state because that's speech. … Boycotting Israel by itself does not tell you anything about the motives of the boycott."
↑  Lawfare部落格 2019: In the Arkansas case, Arkansas Times v. Waldrip, the district court ruled that boycotts against Israel, as defined by the statute, are not protected by the First Amendment. Relying on FAIR, the court found that boycotts are not protected "inherently expressive conduct" because "a refusal to deal, or particular commercial purchasing decisions, do not communicate ideas through words or other expressive media." The court similarly concluded that Claiborne was not on point as it "did not 'address purchasing decisions or other non-expressive conduct'" and instead reached only "meetings, speeches, and non-violent picketing."
↑  芝加哥每日法律公報 2019-05-01: "I think the court has clearly said in Rumsfeld v. FAIR that the decision of who you do business with or not, even when you have a clear ideological motive, does not become expressive," said Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School and a director at the Kohelet Policy Forum in Jerusalem.
↑  哥倫比亞國際法雜誌 2018-05: While an observer could mistake the actions of a BDS boycotter as motivated by something other than specific beliefs about Israel's treatment of Palestinians—for example, anti-semitism — the expressive quality of BDS boycotts is more palpable than the pragmatic recruitment events in Rumsfeld. Particularly as boycotts of Israel have become more widespread and publicized, it is increasingly reasonable to infer a boycotter's political motivations from merely observing their conduct.
↑  芝加哥每日法律公報 2019-05-01: Hauss, one of those attorneys, argued FAIR shouldn't control because that case didn't concern a consumer boycott movement and neither the word 'boycott' nor any citation to Claiborne appears anywhere in the FAIR ruling. "The notion that FAIR could overrule Claiborne, without even mentioning it, doesn't really pass the laugh test," Hauss said. "I think everyone understands when someone is participating in a BDS boycott that they are expressing something."
↑  哈佛法律評論 2016: Kontorovich has advanced this conduct-based argument, analogizing the anti-BDS statute to President Obama's executive order forbidding federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation.... But this definition would cover the Claiborne Hardware boycott, which was directed at white merchants. Participation in a political boycott, even if it has a racial dimension, cannot be equated with a simple act of discrimination.
↑  哥倫比亞國際法雜誌 2018-05: Furthermore, Kontorovich's argument appears to conflict with the basic factual circumstances of Claiborne, in which the NAACP and other groups specifically and deliberately targeted white-owned businesses. That is, the boycotters discriminated on the basis of race, which, according to the argument of Cuomo, Kontorovich, and others, would justify the government banning the boycott altogether.
↑  哈佛法律評論 2016: ... under the doctrine of "unconstitutional conditions," which holds that the government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests — especially, his interest in freedom of speech," this distinction between direct and indirect burdens on protected speech makes no constitutional difference. In fact, the Supreme Court has applied the doctrine to directly hold that the state cannot terminate contracts in retaliation for a contractor's exercise of First Amendment rights.
↑  哈佛法律評論 2016: As noted above, in the case of the anti-BDS statute, it is difficult to argue that a company's decision to boycott a particular nation is related to its ability to perform a contract for which it bids. Instead, the state is using its economic leverage to discourage protected boycott activity. With the unconstitutional conditions doctrine "undergoing something of a renaissance in the Roberts Court," the Court could well use AID's formulation of the doctrine to invalidate the anti-BDS statute even if it stopped short of extending First Amendment protection to all new bidders.
↑  亞利桑那州議會: 亞利桑那州修訂法令，第35篇《公共財政》，第2章《公共基金的運用》，第9條《抵制與撤資以色列》，第393節《定義》："Boycott" means engaging in a refusal to deal, terminating business activities or performing other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with entities doing business in Israel or in territories controlled by Israel, if those actions are taken either: (a) Based in part on the fact that the entity does business in Israel or in territories controlled by Israel. (b) In a manner that discriminates on the basis of nationality, national origin or religion and that is not based on a valid business reason.
↑  哥倫比亞國際法雜誌 2018-05，第130頁: This provision extends far beyond the standard dictionary definition of "boycott," which would merely encompass a refusal to deal, though the precise limits of the statutory prohibition are not clear.
↑  哥倫比亞國際法雜誌 2018-05，第131頁: However, divestment could fall within the broad definitions of "boycott" of many of the statutes, even if the definitions do not explicitly cover such conduct. ... In the four state laws that explicitly mention "sanctions," the specific language regarding sanctions is not written in a way that would be enforceable against a business.
↑  哈佛法律評論 2016: Claiborne Hardware had not yet been decided in 1979, so it was not yet clear that participation in a political boycott was protected First Amendment activity. Today, the federal antiboycott statutes may be unconstitutional.
↑  哈佛法律評論 2016: A key feature of both federal statutes is that they apply only to boycotts organized by foreign nations against allies of the United States.
↑  巴勒斯坦團結法律支援 2015: That act of Congress in 1979 was a rider to legislation regulating US exports and it was intended to counter participation in the Arab League's boycott of Israel. Specifically, the anti-boycott law prohibited participation in a boycott in cooperation with a foreign country. In no way did that legislation apply to boycotts undertaken as a matter of social, political or moral conscience; nor could it, under core First Amendment principles that protect boycotts undertaken to protest foreign or domestic governmental policies or actions.
↑  芝加哥每日法律公報 2019-05-01: Attorney Marc Greendorfer founded the Zachor Legal Institute, a think tank focused on legal challenges to the BDS movement. He said the Longshoremen case shows that the government can limit boycotts that serve as political protest of foreign nations' conduct. "It happens to be the case that International Longshoremen's involved unions, but it also involved directly analogous fact patterns," Greendorfer said.
↑  羅格斯法律評論 2020，第1323頁: However, the Court's analysis made it clear that International Longshoremen was a case about laborlaw under the NLRA, rather than a case about individual rights or the boycott of foreign entities. ... Labor union boycotts have consistently "been analyzed differently than boycotts of business or civil rights groups"
↑  美國眾議院法案4009.
↑  以色列時報 2015-02.
↑  猶太電訊媒介 2015-02-10.
↑  耶路撒冷郵報 2015-02-10.
↑  追踪美國政府 2020-04-18.
1 2  國會監察者 2017-10-30.
↑  國土報 2015-03-27.
↑  共同夢想 2019-01-29.
1 2  全球言論自由：約達爾.
↑  國會研究處 2019-12-03，第21頁.
1 2  全球言論自由：孔茨.
↑  國會研究處 2019-12-03 2019，第21頁. sfn error: no target: CITEREF國會研究處_2019-12-032019 (help)
↑  合法支持巴勒斯坦：堪薩斯.
1 2  全球言論自由：沃爾德里.
1 2  言論自由學院 2019-04-16.
↑  新聞自由記者委員會 2019-07-02.
↑  猶太刊 & 2019-06-11.
↑  公正網 2021-02-12.
↑  半島電視台 2020: Martin says she was invited ... at a media conference in Georgia Southern University on February 28.
↑  半島電視台 2020.
↑  美國以色列關係評議會 2020-02-10.
↑  美通社 2021-05-24.
1 2  全球言論自由：阿瑪維.
↑  Casetext Search + Citator 2019-04-25.
↑  The Intercept 2019-04-26: By any name, that's free speech and free speech is the north star of our democracy. It's foundational, and this decision underlines that no issue of importance can be addressed if the speech about it is stymied, or worse, silenced.
↑  半島電視台 2019.
↑  以色列時報 2018-01-08.
↑  衛報 2018-01-07.
↑  i24news 2018-01-07.
↑  耶路撒冷郵報 2020-08-13.
↑  紐約時報 2019-08-15: Thursday's decision was the first time the law was used against American lawmakers, though seven French politicians and European Union parliamentarians were denied entry in late 2017, according to The Jerusalem Post.
↑  rabble.ca 2016-05-19.
↑  溫哥華市議會 2019-07-23.
↑  Mondoweiss 2019-07-26.
↑  獨立猶太之聲 2019-07-26.
1 2  國土報 2015-02-15.
↑  耶路撒冷郵報 2016-04-27.
1 2  濫用法律：以法律作為戰爭武器 2016，第251頁.
1 2  de Leo 2020.
↑  猶太電訊媒介 2015-10-23.
↑  Bot 2019.
↑  de Leo 2020: ... incitement to discrimination under section 24 (8) of the Law of 29 July 1881.
↑  西蒙·維森塔爾中心2020.
↑  電子起義 2013-11-21.
1 2  全球言論自由：巴爾達西.
↑  de Leo 2020: By stressing that everyone has the right to call for a boycott of Israeli products, as long as it does not turn to incitement to intolerance, violence or hate, the Court firmly and categorically rejected the idea that the BDS movement is discriminatory and anti-Semitic in itself.
↑  濫用法律：以法律作為戰爭武器 2016，第251-2頁.
↑  以色列時報 2017-08-26.
↑  非政府組織監察者 2019-05-22.
1 2  德國聯邦議院 2019-05-17.
↑  德國之聲 2019-05-17.
↑  全球言論自由：奧爾登堡.
↑  慕尼黑事議會 2017-12-13.
↑  耶路撒冷郵報 2017-12-14.
↑  耶路撒冷郵報 2018-10-24.
↑  全球言論自由：慕尼黑.
↑  南德意志報 2020-11-19.
↑  巴伐利亞行政法院 2020-11-19.
↑  波恩市政府 2019-05-14.
↑  歐洲巴勒斯坦協力委員協會 2019-09-19.
↑  全球言論自由：波恩.
↑  獨立報 2016-02-17.
↑  獨立報 2019-12-16.
↑  國土報 2019-11-24.
↑  中東眼 2020-04-29.
↑  奧地利國民議會 2020-02-27.
↑  奧地利駐美華盛頓特區大使館 2020-02-28.
↑  加拿大國會 2016-02-22.
↑  安大略省省議會 2016-12-01.
↑  公共誠信中心 2019-05-01.
↑  圖盧茲市議會 2016-03-18.
↑  紐約時報 2019-05-07.
↑  巴利阿里群島議會 2020-05-22.
↑  猶太電訊媒介 2020-06-22.
↑  美國聯邦國會116眾議院動議246.
↑  亞拉巴馬州參議院動議6.
↑  佛羅里達州參議院動議894.
↑  印第安納州參議院動議74.
↑  賓夕法尼亞州眾議院動議370.
↑  賓夕法尼亞州參議院動議136.
↑  俄亥俄州眾議院動議10.
↑  南卡羅來納州眾議院4635.
↑  南達科他州眾議院動議1005.
↑  田納西州議會動議170.
↑  維珍尼亞州眾議院動議177.
↑  費城市議會動議140029.
↑  美國聯邦國會116眾議院動議496.