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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:
A bit surprised the prosecutor didn't object to the use of the word 'precious'.
Think about the content producers!
If everyone watches stuff like this for free, how will the runners get paid?
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!
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!
(untitled comment)
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?
(untitled comment)
Absolutely nobody thought that.
(untitled comment)
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!
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?
Re:
Typically, people post to share what's in their head. Actually these posts are for the same reason.
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.
(untitled comment)
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.
Re: Re:
Is it acceptable that anyone's reality is like that?
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).
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!"
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.
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.
Re: Re:
Are you saying... he's milking this situation for all it's worth?
More comments from Oblate >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Oblate.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt