Constitutional Law, Media, Politics, Religion, Society

New York Senate Approves Sweeping Ban On Funding of Student Groups Supporting Israeli Boycott and Other Forms of “Intolerance”

Seal_of_New_York_svgWe have been discussing the arrest of people in other countries for participating in protests to boycott Israel and other measures. These actions raise serious free speech issues. Some states have created laws barring contracts with companies that join the boycott of Israel. Now, a controversial measure has passed the New York Senate that bars the funding of any student groups that encourage boycotts of Israel and other allies as well as those groups involved in “hate speech” and “intolerance.” However, the bill introduced by New York state Senator Jack M. Martins (R-Nassau County) is so ambiguously worded as to defy definition of the underlying violations — a critical flaw under first amendment analysis. However, over the objections of various groups, the bill has garnered growing support among politicians.

The bill bars state universities, city universities, and community colleges from funding any student organization that “promotes, encourages, or permits” boycotts against certain nations or permits “intolerance” or “hate speech.” So, if a group is deemed as encouraging intolerance, it is enough to violate the law. The result is an enormous chilling effect as schools seek to avoid violations. Moreover, with the rise of the ill-defined “micro aggression” claims, the definition of what constitutes “intolerance” is difficult to discern. Finally, there are already controversies over the unequal treatment of some speech by protesters on and off campus.

The proposed law states in relevant part:

The [State University of New York (SUNY), City University of New York (CUNY), or state community colleges] shall adopt rules that any student group or student organization that receives funding from [SUNY, CUNY, or community colleges] that directly or indirectly promotes, encourages, or permits discrimination, intolerance, hate speech or boycotts against a person or group based on race, class, gender, nationality, ethnic origin or religion, shall be ineligible for funding, including funding from student activity fee proceeds.

[…]

“Boycott” shall mean to engage in any activity, or to promote or encourage others to engage in any activity, that will result in any person abstaining from commercial, social or political relations, with any allied nation, or companies based in an allied nation or in territories controlled by an allied nation, with the intent to penalize, inflict, or cause harm to, or otherwise promote or cast disrepute upon, such allied nation, its people or its commercial products.

The bill further defines “allied nation” as including any “member” of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), any signatory state of the Southeast Asia Treaty of 1954, any signatory state of the Rio Treaty of 1947 (except Venezuela), Ireland, Israel, Japan, and the Republic of Korea.

In the meantime, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently issued an executive order creating a statewide blacklist prohibiting funding to organizations that “promote others” to engage in a boycott of Israel.

So student groups that generally support boycotts of Israel or Japan (over things like whaling) would now be barred from funding. It is a clear return of content-based regulation of speech. Rather than simply allow the different viewpoints to be heard on our campuses, these politicians seek to sanction any groups that merely agree with the need for a boycott – a view shared by a wide array of academic, public interest, and international organizations. I am not arguing in favor of such views but our universities and colleges must remain forums for free speech — places where opposing views can be heard and considered.

This bill is so vague and ill-defined that it would allow for the sanctioning of a wide array of groups that are deemed intolerant or hostile to various groups, religions, and countries. It defies any cognizable limits to foster free speech on our campuses. Faced with such ambiguity, school administrators are likely to avoid any risk when presented with objections that a group is intolerant or violative under the law.

What do you think?

Here is the bill: S8017

50 thoughts on “New York Senate Approves Sweeping Ban On Funding of Student Groups Supporting Israeli Boycott and Other Forms of “Intolerance””

  1. Israel Did 9-11: Christopher Bollyn
    At March 1st, 2015 Conference In Santa Rosa California – Solving 9-11 Ends The War

    “The government and the media were behind this massive false narrative that was being pushed on people. What we are being told is false”
    “The war on terror is a complete deception, a fraud”

    https://youtu.be/SP_Ezjm7xDg

  3. Dear “Patriot (@musicman27103)” and “zeitgeist2012”:

    I just wanted to you to know that nobody is ignoring your well conceived and articulated posts. Yes, you are correct that Israel controls everything that you see, hear, and experience. Did you know that you do not even exist in the world that you think you do? Unbeknownst to you, the all-knowing, all-powerful Israeli Government has captured you, drugged you, and then locked you in a dark hidden cellar hundreds of feet below the Earth, where your brain is now connected to a gigantic, complex cybermachine.

    The Israeli Government agents have even programmed stories about the Israeli Lobby into your consciousness because they studied you and learned that you developed a hatred for Jews based on your sense of inferiority to them, as you recognized long ago that they are smarter than you, richer than you, more popular than you, more successful with women than you, and so forth.

    The diabolical Israelis have capitalized on your fears, your hatred for Jews, and your deep sense of inferiority to them, to help power their machines. Even my post that you are reading now has simply been programmed by the Israelis, and in reality you are not actually reading anything. You are only imagining that you are reading. You are simply a cog in the wheel fueling the all-powerful Zionist Empire of total, complete, and inexorable control.

  5. Steve, I thought I explained how a third party vote or a write-in vote for Mickey Mouse was effectively a vote for Clinton. But I should refine my explanation given Paul’s reference to the Electoral College. So let me do that. If you are voting in a state where the odds favor Clinton or do not sufficiently favor Trump and you are voting for a third party candidate or are writing-in your vote, you are effectively voting for Clinton.

    Paul, if you are voting in Arizona and at the time of the election the polls heavily favor Trump over Clinton, then yes, your vote for Mickey Mouse would not be an effective vote for Clinton. And by heavily, I’d say a minimum of 80% for Trump would qualify. Anything less, you are effectively voting for Clinton.

    1. Ralph – the only time my vote for Mickey becomes a vote for Hillary in Arizona is if the difference is less than 0.00001 percent. Because of the price of living here and the price of living in CA, a lot of Californians have moved here. Sadly, many of them are Democratic. Then we have the mass of illegals coming across the border every day and Obama trying to make them voters. So, 80 percent is too high to ask these days.

    2. Ralph, thanks for the follow up. You’re playing the same game to which everyone else has succumbed: you’re voting on odds rather than principle, for the lesser of two evils. That’s why we’re at where we’re at: two immutable parties. Don’t ask me to vote for the demagoguery, let alone a moron, from the Republican Party

      Even assuming what you’re saying is true, California has an even bigger problem in that we don’t know whether the odds favor Clinton here. There are an estimated 2.6 million votes from the Democratic primary here that were not counted and in a best case scenario arbitrarily rather than intentionally. It is my understanding that this has happened elsewhere on a large scale, including the second most populous state, New York. I believe if the system hasn’t be intentionally rigged by the two major parties, it’s at least substantially flawed and enough to effect party nominations and the general elections.

      This past Thursday, a courageous resident of El Cajon, Raymond Lutz, filed a lawsuit as a self-represented litigant against the San Diego County Registrar, the county’s chief admin officer, and the county itself seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from procedural irregularities in the primaries. It’s not the most well-written complaint and may suffer amendment, but for purposes of the substance of his dispute, here is the draft of it:

      http://www.copswiki.org/w119/pub/Common/M1658/Lutz_vs_Vu_–_Complaint_for_Declaratory_Relief.pdf

      If you want to battle against Clinton and the Establishment machine per se, election law is where the battle resides. As a corollary, if you support the Citizens United decision from SCOTUS, you may want to revisit why: Clinton has taken that decision and made it her own.

  6. No Paul, a vote for Mickey is not just a vote for “only Mickey.” By voting for Mickey or anyone other than Trump, you are ALLOWING Clinton to win. By voting for anyone other than Trump, you are effectively content to have Clinton as your president over Trump, because unless Trump attracts enough votes, Clinton is slated to win.

    Yes, if she becomes president and does the terrible job that she would inevitably do, selling out American even further, you can say that you weren’t directly responsible because you didn’t vote for her. But you still bear indirect responsibility for electing her.

    In effect, you are like a bystander to a crime that you see is about to happen. You are at a safe distance and you see exactly what is happening. Although you do not directly aid the criminal in his/her act, you get on you smartphone and watch a MIckey Mouse cartoon, instead of calling 911 to attempt to stop the crime that is taking place before you. You have allowed the crime to happen. In a way, you have voted for the crime to succeed because you favored watching Mickey Mouse over selecting an option that would at least have the chance of altering history for the better.

    1. Ralph Adamo – do you know how the President is actually elected? If you did, you would not panic about my vote for Mickey (a deserving candidate). Arizona is very likely going to vote Trump, although they might finally dump McCain. ALL our electoral votes will go to Trump, not just part of them. Although the vote totals could be thrown off by the illegals.

  7. Jill, I had asked you the question first, and I believe that I deserve an answer from you first because you did not agree with my assessment that the majority of posters here are planning on voting for Hillary Clinton (either directly or indirectly, by not voting for Donald Trump).

    Steve has answered my question for the most part. He acknowledges that he is leftist-leaning, though he indicates he won’t be voting for a Democrat this time around, and that he won’t be voting for Trump. This answers my question. He is effectively voting for Clinton. Of course, he objects to my assessment of what a non-Trump vote or non-vote means, but that does not change the statistical odds of Clinton winning right now. The odds are that Clinton will become president unless Trump manages to attract a lot more votes, and no other candidate stands any remote chance of winning. Consequently, my analysis is that if you do not vote for Trump, you are effectively voting for Clinton. More precisely, if you do not vote for Trump, you are effectively voting for Clinton over Trump. This is exactly the very point I made at the start of this discussion.

    Since you have not answered my question, and, instead, have asked me the question, I can reasonably infer many things from that, as well as from your initial response to my original post on this subject. You are not happy with Clinton as the Democrat candidate, but, like, Steve, you are certainly not going to vote for Trump. Perhaps you would have preferred Bernie Sanders, but you know the odds of him upsetting Clinton are remote? Do I have that correct? I think I do. This means that more likely than not, you will either end up voting for Clinton directly, or you will be voting for her indirectly, either by casting a vote for a third party candidate or simply not voting for any presidential candidate. And so, we are back to exactly where Steve is. You are effectively voting for Clinton over Trump.

    I realize that you probably find my drawing of inferences like this to be offensive, as you question how I could know what you are really thinking without hearing the complete side of your story, but I have considerable experience and a very successful professional track record in doing exactly that; applying the skills of deduction to pull the most likely story from minimal information.

    As for your questions about who I am voting for and why, I’m voting for Trump, and my prime reason for doing so is because I am voting against Clinton. A Clinton presidency would be an Obama third term and even possibly worse.

    Also, anyone who is paying attention to what is happening around them can see that there are very powerful interests that are promoting Clinton over Trump. The mainstream media, for example, is clearly 100% behind Clinton. Although many leftists are blind to this fact, even a liberal, like our host, Jonathan Turley, recognized in one of his articles that the media has focused heavily on Trump U, which he acknowledged makes Trump look bad, but totally ignores Laureate Education, which he acknowledged would make Clinton look bad. He does not draw a conclusion from that fact, but any thinking person recognizes that this cannot be a wild coincidence.

    And, anyone paying attention would see that many high ranking members of the Republican Party are opposed to Trump even though he won the primary. Their public comments have only served to help Hillary Clinton and to harm Trump.

    Then, there are the real power players behind the scenes. I speak, of course, of the money interests. Who does Wall Street, the Saudis, and China want as their US president? You know — or should know — the answer to that. Follow the money.

    Does the mainstream media, the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, Wall Street, the Saudis, and China have America’s best interests at heart? To me, even the very question is absurd. They are opposed to the interests of America and are only interested in the preservation and expansion of their own power base and influence OVER the interests of the American population.

    Trump is the only real independent candidate with the capability to actually serve the interests of the entire American people. Trump has proven that he knows how to hire the right people to get a job done well. Importantly, Trump knows that some people have to be fired. And there are many, many people in government today that need to be fired.

    Also, I think it would be refreshing to have the nation led by someone with substantial private sector experience, instead of the usual political hacks that only serve the special interests and themselves. Government run by your typical politicians is inherently corrupt, fraudulent, wasteful, and mismanaged. Yet, the Government only wants to expand its power over citizens.

    For an example of why we need private sector leadership skills, look no further than the Omar Mateen mass murder case in Orlando. If you’ve been paying attention to the news, you would know that in preparation for his murders, Mateen had gone to a gun shop seeking to buy protective Kevlar body armor. Now, even though this gun shop would have every incentive to sell Mateen what he wanted, the staff found Mateen to be very suspicious, without knowing anything of his history. These private gun store staff members were so suspicious of Mateen’s behavior that they reported him to the FBI, though they did not know his name or address. But, we can see in this case that the private sector worked well; even better than expected, as they could have just ignored Mateen’s visit to them.

    So what did the FBI do with this information? NOTHING. A real investigative body with the interests of Americans at heart would have brought photos of young men fitting Mateen’s Middle Eastern or Arab description to the gun store staff to see if they had a match. The FBI had already investigated Mateen TWICE and surely had photos of him. Plenty photos were already available on social media too. Clearly, if we had a real investigative body serving America, instead of the Saudis and other power players promoting Islamoterrorism, Mateen would have been quickly identified, targeted, tracked, and stopped with his weapons before he could have fired so much as a single burst of gunfire at the Orlando nightclub.

    But, according to Obama and Clinton, none of this is a problem with Islam, the FBI, or its leadership. The problem according to them is that there are too many guns in the hands of the American public. In stark contrast, Trump recognizes that the real problem is not guns, but with Islam and the complete lack of leadership in the Government to serve America’s interests.

    1. Ralph – I am sorry that you feel that my vote for Mickey Mouse is somehow a vote for Hillary Clinton. It is not. It is a vote for Mickey and only Mickey.

    2. Ralph, thanks for your analysis. However, you failed to articulate just how a progressive who refuses to give his vote to Clinton and will vote third party is effectively giving his vote to Clinton. Clinton wants lefties to ::ahem:: unite with the party as if she’s got a clue.

      Your gloss is a bit like Trump saying “Trust me. I know what to do.”

      They’re both a couple of self-interested blowhards and both will continue the slaughter in the Middle East.

      Kind regards.

  15. Let’s just get on with it.
    DC, state number 51
    Puerto Rico number 52
    Israel, state number 53
    Replace the stars on our flag with the Stars of David
    Who are we kidding? If Israel is such a little girl that needs constant saving from the big bad bullies of the world and here at home then maybe we ought to take the little helpless girl under our big ole umbrella of US love.

  16. So Jill and Steve, are you going to end up voting for Clinton or any other non-Trump vote? (A vote for anyone other than Trump is effectively a vote for Clinton.)

    My instincts tell me you will.

    1. Ralph writes, “So Jill and Steve, are you going to end up voting for Clinton or any other non-Trump vote? (A vote for anyone other than Trump is effectively a vote for Clinton.) My instincts tell me you will.”

      I don’t know that a vote for anyone other than Trump is a vote for Clinton. Lefties like me who are finished with the Democratic Party certainly aren’t going to vote for Trump and they’ll reduce the number of votes Clinton would have otherwise collected.

      I’ll never vote for a Democrat again, and I’ve only voted once in my lifetime for a Republican (Bob Kasten, who displaced Gaylord Nelson (a huge mistake without no justification other than Nelson’s long tenure in office for fresh blood)), and I’ll never make the mistake of voting for a Republican again.

      And, by the way, Bernie was a consideration last year, but he early on pulled in the reins on what he knows is blatant corruption in the Democratic Party. I get it: he’s one of the rare honest guys who wants to maintain professional integrity. Besides, he has to work with those people in Congress, but his efforts to protect the party go too far in light of the fact they’re murdering people across the globe and gutting the middle class.

      Mussolini’s definition of fascism apparently was “the merging of the state and the corporation.” That’s what we’ve got now, and people better wake up to selflessness or we’ll end up like that moron did. Clinton and Trump will both fit that model although Trump’s the moron of the two.

      My view is much more egalitarian: representation in government should be about helping constituents, not one’s self, to a piece of the pie.

      I strayed from the Green Party (I voted for Nader in ’96, ’00, and ’04) when Obama came up to the plate, and then again in 2012 when I gave him the benefit of the doubt, both votes having been mistakes in hindsight. He’s protected corporatism far more than he should have in bailing out the banks and the automakers and in destabilization the Middle East to continue our control of the oil fields and the petrocurrency. Clinton will do no different. That means a lot of people will die.

      I voted for Jill Stein in the primary here last month, but apparently 2.5 million votes weren’t counted and there’s a ban now on exit polling to rule out inconsistent results. In many states that permit exit polling, the deviation has been up to 12% different from the actual vote count when UN observers observing elections abroad presume fraud if there’s a 2% difference. I’m concerned my vote wasn’t even counted, but I’ll vote for her again in the general election. The other candidates have given up the principles they once may have had.

  19. Jill, first, based on the posts here, I’d estimate that more than 70% here are going to end up voting for Clinton, however they justify that choice to themselves. I’d basically agree with you second point. As for your third point, Clinton is not a “strong supporter of Israel.” She is only a “strong supporter” if you believe her public words. Her private words reveal the truth, as does her actions. Many of her emails that became public disclose her true position on Israel, which goes completely against her public statements. And as, I’ve already pointed out, she’s funded by the Saudis in substantial part, whose interests goes against Israel as well as the United States. What “powerful people” in Israel are “subverting free speech”? Israel is loaded with leftists and media sources that constantly attack Israel and convey a pro-Palestinian stance.

    My point is that because leftists and left-leaning people are inherently anti-Israel, as it’s part of the inculcated leftist DNA, they obsess over anything and everything by which to attack Israel directly or indirectly, while hypocritically ignoring the enemies of civilization, if not supporting them outright.

Comments are closed.