The new bill comes after Andrew Bailey vowed to investigate companies pulling business from X, formerly Twitter over hate speech.
That sounds like the government is trying to interfere with free speech and the free market.
Definitely. Republicans are big fans of “let the market decide” and big opponents of “big government dictating what companies should do” until the market decides against them. Then, suddenly, the Republicans are big fans of the government deciding what companies should do and opponents of the free market.
The levels of hypocrisy never fail to amaze me.
The supposed love of free markets and things like “states rights” is just a cover for their racism and their greed and their insatiable desire to rule over others.
In-groups to protect, out-groups to bind, always.
Yep. That’s the real credo of the teabaggers.
I am pretty sure this is pure virtue signaling that will be overturned. The article mentions that “Israel boycott” laws have been upheld, but I’m unsure of either the effectiveness of those laws (ie what has to be demonstrated if the entity doesn’t say they’re not entering a contract for political reasons but rather has another justification) or the applicability (since my guess is that the BDS stuff falls under some stretch of the government being the only entity allowed to effect foreign policy decisions, but I’m not sure of the actual legal basis and I’m too tired to research it at the moment).
deleted by creator
It shows the right never cared about FREEZED PEACH. What they want is a platform like Xitter to be run by a twerp like Space Karen in such a way as to maximize liberal “ownage” and to platform Nazis, and, ideally, give people no way to completely opt out of their dreck.
Capitalism for me, but not for thee.
Setting aside constitutional issues, think about how insane and delusional you have to be to decide that the fact that a significant number of people are protesting your policies means that protesting needs to be
prohibitedpunished.Bill Text: https://www.senate.mo.gov/24info/pdf-bill/intro/SB1061.pdf
It doesn’t prohibit protesting, it basically says that if you engage in “economic boycott” (a term which about a third of the bill is spent defining) then the State of Missouri cannot use you as a vendor, and any contracts with them are null and void.
So less prohibiting protesting and more not buying stuff from protesters. Probably still a 1A violation, though from an odd enough angle I’m not sure.
Wonder how that would work out given the number of firearms vendors that actively boycott liberal things like budlight. Police departments are going to be all outta ammo.
Well, according to the Citizens United decision, corporations are people and money is speech, so a company deciding with who they’re going to spend money is protected speech.
Sounds like the anti-BDS laws. Somehow that’s a thing, and I’m not sure how that’s even allowed.
Also, I was amused that BDS also stands for “Biden Derangement Syndrome”. In the years before Denver Post closed their comments, they ramped their censorship way up and for some reason “BDS” would trigger their nanny-filter. I’m supposing even the mention of the boycott of Israel was bridge too far for the nannies at Denver Post.
“Well, it brings the subject into view and we hate hearing about it (cry harder, libs!) so we’ll just stop people from doing the thing that brings it into view and annoys us.” - conservative snowflakes, probably
“No one should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.” “No company should be allowed to refuse to give another company millions of dollars a month in advertising income just because they began vocally supporting nazism”
These are two thoughts that simultaneously bounce around in GOP politicians’ heads. They seem to be contradictory ideas until you realize that they are simply ALWAYS in favor of harming the right people and do not give the slightest shit about applying the same rules to everyone if those rules harm the wrong people.
The only principle the GOP has is whatever they think will win them the current argument. Asking for any ideological consistency from them is tilting at windmills.
“No company should be allowed to refuse to give another company millions of dollars a month in advertising income just because they began vocally supporting nazism”
This bill doesn’t do that. It just says that if you engage in “economic boycott” (which about a third of the bill is spent defining, but doesn’t include refusing to deal with a company for “vocally supporting nazism” unless you are using very nonstandard definitions of “vocally supporting” and “nazism”), the State of Missouri cannot use you as a vendor.
I’ll grant you the bill does not restrict economic boycott against nazism per se. It does restrict vendor economic boycott against use of fossil fuels, deforestation, strip mining, anything to do with firearms, failing to meet greenhouse gas emissions standards, refusing to provide employees with insurance that covers abortion or gender reaffirming care, grossly underpays their employees, refuses to put non-whites on the board or their employee payroll, etc. If your company decides to switch providers of a good or service, end advertisement deals, or no longer sell to a company, the decision to do so better not involve those things at all, or you lose the ability to gain or keep state government contracts.
Notably, all these disqualifying boycotts are things that a left-leaning company might engage in. They do not disqualify company’s that boycott for right-leaning reason though. Like companies that provide abortion or gender affirming care to their employees, companies with diversity requirements on their staff/boards, companies that scale the lowest wages to the board’s wages, companies that are unionized or employee owned, companies that advocate against or provide alternatives to fossil fuels, companies that advocate against deforestation, fracking, or firearms.
The bill would allow them to using vendors that boycott Planned Parenthood over abortion services but disallow them to use vendors that boycott BP over anothet major oil spill. Feel free to punish the left for practicing their values and continue to practice your own right leaning values without worrying about losing your government contracts. Apparently it’s okay to disqualify left-leaning boycotts, but not right-leaning boycotts. You do see how blatantly biased and anti-1st amendment that is, right?
failing to meet greenhouse gas emissions standards
The rest are also terrible, but this is a big blow to companies trying to reduce their Scope 2 and 3 emissions. I wonder how many companies that rely on government contracts will have to just give up on their emissions reporting, and therefore also end up divested/boycotted by companies who do not rely on government contracts and are continuing their emissions reporting (including Scope 2/3)? This would split the economy into “government-reliant companies who are not trying to reduce emissions”, and “everyone else”, with neither side including the other in their supply chain.
What’s crazy is how none of our current reps could come up with this and it was written by billionaires to protect billionaires
You do see how blatantly biased and anti-1st amendment that is, right?
It IS blatantly biased and anti-1st Amendment, no question about it. However Missouri isn’t the first to do it and I can provide several examples of Blue States engaging in this same tactic, starting prior to the pandemic.
California for instance has a politically motivated Travel Ban to numerous other States, including Florida, that’s founded in who the State will spend money with. Los Angeles once declared that it wouldn’t hire vendors who donated to the NRA and tried to force them disclose that. It’s not just California either, New York has several similar laws.
It’s all politicians flexing their authority over State spending in pursuit of causes that their citizens care about.
First Amendment violation. Won’t go anywhere.
Except that they can pass the bill, and enforce the bill, and the legislation stays active and in place until someone with standing files suit, goes to court (taking on the time and money expense of doing so), goes through the appeals process (and we know that the State could also appeal, so either way it goes), on and on until it gets to SCOTUS. All of which can take years, during which unconstitutional fuckery is foisted upon the good citizens of Missouri.
This is the standard that’s been set: do whatever the fuck you want, and abuse the judiciary to get away with it as long as possible.
And, you’re putting a lot of faith in the SCOTUS to actually do the right thing.
Yeah, I was describing the best case scenario.
Yeah the majority of SCOTUS has basically decreed that if an issue didn’t exist at the time of the founding of the Constitution then it cannot apply.
It’s very convenient when you can chuck out a solid 150 years of precedent and just pretend the intentions of a bunch of dead people. Fuck ethics and actually engaging with the wording of the law to dicern it’s intention amirite?
Also worth noting that it takes someone or a group with enough time and deep enough pockets to tend it to court just to set everything straight.
until someone with standing files suit,
…and what that case will end up looking like is a company suing Missouri because Missouri won’t buy shit from them because they in turn won’t buy shit from companies that…aren’t carbon neutral, or also work with the timber industry, or don’t have enough PoC on their corporate boards, or w/e.
Last i checked there’s already a law like this in Texas that forbids businesses who work with the state from boycotting Israel, oil and gas companies, or gun rights groups
It’s a stalling tactic that all these Red States keep using to enact something clearly in violation of The US Constitution and provisions, so they can wait out the time until the case is taken by a superior court. https://www.txcourts.gov/supreme/case-summaries/
Feel free to dig through.
Not necessarily, businesses would be free to not do business so long as they’re not also contracted with the state. This refers to businesses contracted with the state, so it’s more like the terms of their contract rather than an explicit rights issue.
Businesses doing business with the state would be required to also do business with these other groups or risk losing their contracts. That seems like a clear violation to me.
Describe?
Let’s say my company wins the bid for a contact. Yay! But now one of my competitors checks and I haven’t donated to the NRA and files suit saying I’m ineligible because I refuse to donate to them on a political basis. Now that’s bullshit, but I have to pay a lawyer anyway to go to court and help me explain that it’s bullshit.
In order to forestall that lawsuit, it’s a lot cheaper to just give $50 or whatever to some right wing bullshit charities. It’s only pocket change but I have to pay it to causes I don’t support as a sort of insurance. Yet I can’t turn around and file sit over someone who doesn’t donate to planned parenthood. That’s a hell of a double standard.
You have the right to sue for discovery in the US. Nobody can specifically tell you how to run your business.
If it involves paying lawyers, you just made my point.
Cool. Why don’t you ask Alex Jones how that all worked out.
But it isn’t, and it fits in line with the Civil Rights Act Title VI which prohibits businesses that work for the federal government from discriminating against certain classes. This is the same law, but at the state level. Speech is not curtailed unless you choose the option that requires curtailment.
Like I say, the business is free to not take state contracts then refuse business to whoever they like (just like the gay cake baker did), but if they want to work for the state they have to follow state rules.
What’s the protected class in this case?
Apparently, transphobes
Read the bill.
It’s several assorted industries, businesses that do not meet, are expected not to meet or do not commit to meet any particular environmental standard, employee compensation standard, board composition standard, or facilitating access to abortion, sex change, or transgender medical treatment. What exactly this entails is about a third of the bill: https://www.senate.mo.gov/24info/pdf-bill/intro/SB1061.pdf
So, if you refuse to deal with a company because that company doesn’t have the right mix of demographics on their board, or works with the timber industry, or their health insurance doesn’t cover trans HRT, then the State of Missouri won’t use you as a vendor.
Is your position that people should be able to discriminate based on any identifying trait? Then you’re against The Constitution, and you will lose in court.
Well that’s the thing, sexual discrimination isn’t really protected in the US outside of employment.
The US has:
- 14th Amendment, which states the law must apply to everyone equally (so gay people can get married)
- The Civil Rights Act, which contains various Titles:
- Title II, which prevents businesses in hospitality or operating across state lines from discriminating over race, color, religion, or national origin
- Title VI, which prohibits businesses working for the federal government from discriminating over race, color, or national origin
- Title VII, which prohibits employers from discriminating over race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
I’m actually in 2 minds about whether the 1st Amendment would prevent this. One the one hand, there is a clear gap in the Federal law that State law should be able to fill. On the other, that gap was exactly the same thing as the gay cake baker successfully challenged against.
What if I just don’t want to donate to the NRA? What if I just decide not to advertise on Twitter? Maybe I can say either of those decisions are for financial reasons, but in the long run it’ll cost me more in lawyers fees to prove it than give them some token amount of money. That doesn’t seem right, particularly the lack of requirements to do business with companies politically aligned on the other end of the spectrum.
As someone who occasionally works government contracts this isn’t an academic question for me, though at least I can prove I don’t advertise anywhere. I can’t claim politically neutral donations, though. I frequently donate to queer-youth-focused charities (although they don’t verify that they refuse to help conservative teen queer-folk, so maybe they are considered neutral?) and never to right-wing causes.
Edit: phone really ate up the end of this post and I was too rushed to reread. Mostly fixed now probably…
Well that’s just the futility of banning boycotts. Unless someone actually says they’re boycotting, you’d have almost no way of proving that they were.
So you don’t live in the US?
What if I just don’t want to donate to the NRA? What if I just decide not to advertise on Twitter? Maybe I can say either of those decisions are for financial reasons, but in the long run it’ll cost me more in lawyers fees to prove it than give them some token amount of money. That doesn’t seem right, particularly the lack of requirements to do business with companies politically aligned on the other end of the spectrum.
Those are fine by this law.
What this law actually does would be closer to if you refused to do business with another company because **that ** company donates to the NRA, then the State of Missouri refuses to use you as a vendor.
Removing any free choice would be a violation of first amendment rights. People can NOT participate in what is mentioned here, but you can’t force them to participate.
“Let the free market will decide”
“No, not like that”
That’s called SMALL GOVERNMENT!
A lot of people in the comments are saying how this won’t hold up or how unconstitutional it is but 35 fucking states have already passed anti-bds (boycotts, divestment*, and sanctions) laws that do the same thing as this bill but Israel. If the politicians are sufficiently bribed enough, they won’t care what the laws actually are.
That just means 35 states have passed unconstitutional laws about Israel.
The article also points out that the eighth circuit has already ruled on a case challenging a similar law, that the law is constitutional.
boycott, divest, and sanction
deleted by creator
Thanks for the catch, I edited the comment.
If a legislator tries to pass something so blatantly obviously against the constitution, they should be thrown in jail and barred from ever writing another law again.
Yes, I know that’d put a lot of politicians in jail. Doesn’t that put a smile on your face, too?
So, I guess freedom of association is not a thing with the teabaggers.
And what about the FREEZED PEACH? I thought Space Karen and his fanbois wanted a “marketplace of ideas” and whatnot?
Something something sincerely held beliefs.
Thanks a lot, Supreme Court.
You’ve made the christians into a protected class.
So the party of small government strikes again…
I’ll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missouri.
But… 20gig fiber and wi-fi 7!
So that goes both ways, right? Right wing businesses can’t refuse to deal with companies just because they are “woke,” right?
Time for someone to form Woke Antifa Rainbows, Inc and then sue right wing companies for refusing to do business with them.
It doesn’t actually, the law is written specifically to disallow people from boycotting companies that destroy the environment, hate LGBTQ, actively promote anti-LGBTQ ideals, etc., but it DOESN’T stop the alternate – the right can still boycott people who support LGBTQ rights, people who support working to fight climate change, etc. Just another one-sided law attempting to illegalize entirely legal business decisions by the left while allowing the right to continue saying it’s OK to deny people wedding cakes if you hate the gays.
I figured as much. When people (or companies) say “I don’t want to be associated with statements like this,” the right’s response depends on whose statements they are. If they are statements from the right, then it’s “cancel culture” and must be banned. If they are statements from the left, then it’s just Free Speech and no action against those saying it is allowed for any reason.
It’s such an obvious double standard.
the law is written specifically to disallow people from boycotting companies that destroy the environment, hate LGBTQ, actively promote anti-LGBTQ ideals, etc., but it DOESN’T stop the alternate
That’s correct! The law is written to be non-commutative. That is it works one way, but the lack of indicating the other, implicitly indicates that it is not true. Here are the sections from the bill.
(a) Engages in the exploration, production, utilization, transportation, sale, or manufacturing of, fossil fuel-based energy, timber, mining, or agriculture;
(b) Engages in, facilitates, or supports the manufacture, import, distribution, marketing or advertising, sale, or lawful use of firearms, ammunition or component parts and accessories of firearms or ammunition;
© Does not meet, is not expected to meet, or does not commit to meet environmental standards or disclosure criteria, in particular to eliminate, reduce, offset, or disclose greenhouse gas emissions;
(d) Does not meet, is not expected to meet, or does not commit to meet any specified criteria with respect to the compensation and composition of the company’s corporate board and the employees of the company;
(e) Does not facilitate, is not expected to facilitate, or does not commit to facilitate access to abortion, sex or gender change, or transgender surgery or medical treatments;As you can see they are worded to have meaning in a single direction but aren’t reflexive in language. So this allows people to boycott the opposite of the above, but prohibits boycotting anything above.
It’s literally a law compelling conservative belief. And they know it’s not going to survive a legal challenge, but they also know they’ll get something like two or three decades out it before being completely overturned. It’s literally a legislative Hail, Mary.
Conservatism is not a protected class. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone based on their political orientation.
We have a moral duty to not engage in business with bigots, misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, xenophobes, antisemites and racists. Conservatism should be openly excluded from polite society without fear. It is the moral thing to do.
It’s the paradox of tolerance. To safeguard a tolerant society, you have to be intolerant when it comes to the intolerant.
The social contract of tolerance
