US: In Three States, Federal Courts Struck Down Laws Suppressing Boycotts of Israeli Products

Bahia Amawi, is an Austrian-born American citizen and speech pathologist, Youtube
US District Judge Robert Pitman, an appointee of Barack Obama, ruled against a law in Texas that would prevent the state from doing business with companies that supported the boycott of goods from Israel. The court ruled that such a law violates freedom of speech and threatens to “manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion.” More than half of US states have such laws on the books. Federal courts have struck down similar anti-boycott laws in Kansas and Arizona. The ACLU says the three courts protected the right to boycott under the First Amendment. -GEG

In 2017, Texas became one of more than two dozen states to pass a law or have taken some sort of executive action explicitly targeting the pro-Palestinian boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement. The Texas statute barred the state from doing business with companies involved in the movement. The free speech concerns here are rather obvious, and on Thursday night, a federal judge ruled against the law.

U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas Robert Pitman, an appointee of Barack Obama, delivered an injunction to the Texas law on Thursday night. The lead plaintiff, Bahia Amawi, is an Austrian-born American citizen and speech pathologist with family members in Palestine. Due to her support of BDS, Amawi had refused to sign a contract with a local school district for whom she had worked for nearly a decade which explicitly said she wouldn’t boycott Israel, and thus was forced to end her relationship with the school district.

In his opinion, Pitman directly took on the fact that just five lawmakers in the entire Texas legislature voted against the bill. “Texas touts these numbers as the statute’s strength,” Pitman wrote, in finding that the law violates the First Amendment. “They are, rather, its weakness.” Later, he wrote that “the statute threatens ‘to suppress unpopular ideas’ and ‘manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion.’ This the First Amendment does not allow.”

Read full article here…

Additional source:

Visit our Classified ads.

Check out our Classified ads at the bottom of this page.

Recent stories & commentary


COVID: Here Come the Antibody Tests — Quick, Easy, and Insane

April 6, 2020 Jon Pappoport 0

The US FDA has approved a new test to detect COVID-19. The blood test detects antibodies to the virus rather than the virus itself. Neither the false positives nor the genuine positives will be a measure of risk but, none the less, they will be used as proof that the ‘deadly’ pandemic is spreading.


End the Shutdown, Says Dr. Ron Paul

The Mises Institute article states: “Neither the Trump administration nor Congress has the legal authority to shut down American life absent at least baseline due process.” Ron Paul says the pandemic is being used by politicians to spend money with wild abandon and to take away civil liberties.


How to Create a False Pandemic, by Jon Rappoport

April 3, 2020 Jon Rappoport 1

Jon Rappoport, who has studied epidemics and pandemics for 35 years, marshals the evidence in this series of podcasts that the Covid-19 pandemic is one of the most colossal deceptions the world has ever seen. This is investigative journalism at its best.


For classified advertising rates and terms, click here. The appearance of ads on this site does not signify endorsement by the publisher. We do not attempt to verify the accuracy of statements made therein or vouch for the integrity of advertisers. However, we will investigate complaints from readers and remove any message we find to be misleading or that promotes anything fraudulent, illegal, or unethical.

Leave a Reply

3 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
william ChandlerCharles Robinson Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Charles Robinson
Charles Robinson

The Founding Fathers would be proud.

william Chandler
william Chandler

(1) Government has no legitimacy interfereing in Civilian Boycotts (2) Boycotts are a Civil RIght (3) Boycotts are FREEDOM of SPEECH. (4) Boycotts are FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION — DISassociation. (5) Boycotts are VOTING with dollars. (6) Boycotts PEACEFULLY withhold “power/energy” from those with whom one disagrees without engaging in violence. (7) In “Capitalism”, the system we CLAIM to follow, where and with whom you spend your money is ENTIRELY up to YOU. The Citizens United Supreme Court decision firmly established that the right to spend money is a form of free speech. That means that the right to NOT spend… Read more »

william Chandler
william Chandler

Why don’t these PROSTiticians outlaw the Israeli BOYCOTT of Concentration Camp GAZA ?