I mentioned those laws as they are relevant to the above story but were not mentioned in the discussion. If you want more information on their history, discussion pro or con, etc. there's multitudes of places online to find that information.
But to your question- it can not be answered as it contains a false premise. There are not state laws punishing companies for criticizing Israeli policies. As was clearly stated, the laws being discussed relate to a boycott. The companies can criticize all they want without legal repercussion. Additionally the specious comparison of Israel to Apartheid-era South Africa makes the question unanswerable. This false comparison is a perfect example of how a lie repeated often enough will be believed by some (search Big Lie for other examples). To be clear there's plenty of issues in Israel, but name-calling and smearing via this comparison does nothing to advance the issue.
IANAL, but as has been noted free speech does not mean free from consequences. Companies are not prohibited from boycotting anything, they can boycott all they want. But as a consequence of that decision, others have the right to boycott/divest them.
The trademark dispute and the kosher certification are B.S. distractions from the bigger parts of this story. Ben and Jerry's is 'divesting' from operations in parts of Israel, in line with the goals of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which is often criticized as being anti-semitic and for having links to terrorist groups. There's plenty of information online to support these criticisms. Where it's relevant to Florida, and several (33) other states, is that they have laws in place that force them to divest from companies that boycott Israel. That is what is meant by "list of companies that should be scrutinized". The state laws would generally require them to not do business with companies on that list, and to not invest state funds, including their sizable pension funds, in those companies.
But enough background- I suspect that the trademark dispute will never be an issue as they're continuing to sell in all of Israel through the end of 2022, and it's likely that this will be resolved by then.
In the Complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the Temporary Act will infringe on the rights of citizens of the District
This is the most surprising part to me, that the FOP has not only admitted that citizens have rights, but that they pretend here to actually be concerned about them!
So is Moscow Mitch going to shove this bill up his cloaca and hide it next to the coronavirus relief bill? Or is there a chance he'll let this be voted on?
Any such statement that is not supported by a reliable reference (i.e. actual supporting evidence) should be dismissed out of hand, along with whatever drivel follows it. Maybe the FCC could implement Bullshit Caps and charge Charter Spectrum/etc. for excessive bullshit filings? After the first month of surprise charges (but they were in the fine print!) the FCC could probably fund the USPS!
So when they get a request to turn over 'fake' subpoenas, will they appeal on the basis of self incrimination? Any chance there's other criminal behavior which will be exposed by these subpoenas, and they're hoping to delay until the statue of limitations has expired?
Both of my next door neighbors are immigrants (I'm not), and they're very nice neighbors. Why do you think having immigrants as neighbors is a bad thing? The few 'neighbor' problems we've seen on our street were not from immigrants.
Let's see, made blatant lies to the public, to regulators, to congress under oath, called those noting facts that undermine his position liars, selling out and screwing over hundreds of his own employees, and (potentially) thousands of his former customers. Is that correct? Looks like someone has an eye on political office in 2024! Any word on sexual harassment claims? Not to worry, there's still plenty of time.
It seems to me like this company is wildly successful at its' core mission.
the company raised nearly $2 billion before it even had launched.
It's just that the core mission seems to be to separate money from gullible investors, not whatever you thought it was with videos or something (a summary of the video features described above sounds like something the Onion would put out on a slow day).
I suspect you have it reversed- the thought process is probably more like "I want to be able to do these things to people, if I have power then I can get away with it!"
Has it been clearly established that (as alleged) throwing toilet paper rolled in that precise fashion, and hitting a corrections officer in that specific location of their face, is a violation of prison rules? If not, then any reprisal from the officer was inappropriate.
When I first read through this, I thought that the lawsuit was because Barnes holds copyright on the phrase "punchable face". I see now that this is somehow not the case.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re:
I mentioned those laws as they are relevant to the above story but were not mentioned in the discussion. If you want more information on their history, discussion pro or con, etc. there's multitudes of places online to find that information.
But to your question- it can not be answered as it contains a false premise. There are not state laws punishing companies for criticizing Israeli policies. As was clearly stated, the laws being discussed relate to a boycott. The companies can criticize all they want without legal repercussion. Additionally the specious comparison of Israel to Apartheid-era South Africa makes the question unanswerable. This false comparison is a perfect example of how a lie repeated often enough will be believed by some (search Big Lie for other examples). To be clear there's plenty of issues in Israel, but name-calling and smearing via this comparison does nothing to advance the issue.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re:
IANAL, but as has been noted free speech does not mean free from consequences. Companies are not prohibited from boycotting anything, they can boycott all they want. But as a consequence of that decision, others have the right to boycott/divest them.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
This is actually a few scoops deeper...
The trademark dispute and the kosher certification are B.S. distractions from the bigger parts of this story. Ben and Jerry's is 'divesting' from operations in parts of Israel, in line with the goals of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which is often criticized as being anti-semitic and for having links to terrorist groups. There's plenty of information online to support these criticisms. Where it's relevant to Florida, and several (33) other states, is that they have laws in place that force them to divest from companies that boycott Israel. That is what is meant by "list of companies that should be scrutinized". The state laws would generally require them to not do business with companies on that list, and to not invest state funds, including their sizable pension funds, in those companies.
But enough background- I suspect that the trademark dispute will never be an issue as they're continuing to sell in all of Israel through the end of 2022, and it's likely that this will be resolved by then.
On the post: Whistleblower Daniel Hale Sentenced To 45 Months In Prison For Exposing The Horrors Of US Drone Strike Programs
Re:
A bit surprised the prosecutor didn't object to the use of the word 'precious'.
On the post: Copyright Ruins Everything Again: How Dare A Sports Writer Get People Excited About The Olympics!
Think about the content producers!
If everyone watches stuff like this for free, how will the runners get paid?
On the post: DC Court Dumps Police Union's Attempt To Block Release Of Recordings, Officers' Names Following Police Shootings
This won't happen again...
This is the most surprising part to me, that the FOP has not only admitted that citizens have rights, but that they pretend here to actually be concerned about them!
On the post: Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI
That's not all they're going to learn about...
Sounds like a bunch of them are also going to get their Miranda rights explained to them!
On the post: Trump Makes It Official: He's Going To Pull Military Funding, Because Congress Won't Kill The Open Internet
So is Moscow Mitch going to shove this bill up his cloaca and hide it next to the coronavirus relief bill? Or is there a chance he'll let this be voted on?
On the post: SafeSpeed Executive Charged With Bribing Cook County Officials For Red Light Camera Contracts
Absolutely nobody thought that.
On the post: Charter Spectrum Tells FCC Broadband Caps Are 'Popular' As It Tries To Kill Merger Conditions Preventing Them
Any such statement that is not supported by a reliable reference (i.e. actual supporting evidence) should be dismissed out of hand, along with whatever drivel follows it. Maybe the FCC could implement Bullshit Caps and charge Charter Spectrum/etc. for excessive bullshit filings? After the first month of surprise charges (but they were in the fine print!) the FCC could probably fund the USPS!
On the post: Judge Hits District Attorney Who Issued Fake Subpoenas With A $50,000 Penalty For Blowing Off Records Requests
Their next step?
So when they get a request to turn over 'fake' subpoenas, will they appeal on the basis of self incrimination? Any chance there's other criminal behavior which will be exposed by these subpoenas, and they're hoping to delay until the statue of limitations has expired?
On the post: The Need For A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Is Clear And Overwhelming
Re:
Typically, people post to share what's in their head. Actually these posts are for the same reason.
On the post: Federal Court Says ICE Can No Longer Enter New York Courthouses Just To Arrest Alleged Undocumented Immigrants
Re:
Both of my next door neighbors are immigrants (I'm not), and they're very nice neighbors. Why do you think having immigrants as neighbors is a bad thing? The few 'neighbor' problems we've seen on our street were not from immigrants.
On the post: Yet More Layoffs Hit Sprint/T-Mobile, Despite Promises This Assuredly Wouldn't Happen
Let's see, made blatant lies to the public, to regulators, to congress under oath, called those noting facts that undermine his position liars, selling out and screwing over hundreds of his own employees, and (potentially) thousands of his former customers. Is that correct? Looks like someone has an eye on political office in 2024! Any word on sexual harassment claims? Not to worry, there's still plenty of time.
On the post: Court Cites George Floyd Killing While Denying Immunity To Officers Who Shot A Black Man 22 Times As He Lay On The Ground
Re: Re:
Is it acceptable that anyone's reality is like that?
On the post: Quibi Is What Happens When Hollywood Overvalues Content And Undervalues Community
I guess it's a matter of perspective...
It seems to me like this company is wildly successful at its' core mission.
It's just that the core mission seems to be to separate money from gullible investors, not whatever you thought it was with videos or something (a summary of the video features described above sounds like something the Onion would put out on a slow day).
On the post: Court Tells Pro-Trump 12-Year-Old That Calling Him A Defender Of Racism And Sexual Assault Is Protected Speech
Re: Re:
I suspect you have it reversed- the thought process is probably more like "I want to be able to do these things to people, if I have power then I can get away with it!"
On the post: Not Clearly Established A Jailer Can't Spray A Prisoner In The Eyes With Pepper Spray For No Reason, Says Fifth Circuit
Always the wrong questions being asked...
Has it been clearly established that (as alleged) throwing toilet paper rolled in that precise fashion, and hitting a corrections officer in that specific location of their face, is a violation of prison rules? If not, then any reprisal from the officer was inappropriate.
On the post: The Rorshach Test Of The Covington Catholic Boy's DC Encounter Now Extends To Bogus Lawsuits And Confidential Settlements
Confusing at first...
When I first read through this, I thought that the lawsuit was because Barnes holds copyright on the phrase "punchable face". I see now that this is somehow not the case.
On the post: Devin Nunes Libel Tourism Continues To Highlight The Problems Of Virginia's Weak Anti-SLAPP Laws
Re: Re:
Are you saying... he's milking this situation for all it's worth?
Next >>