Thursday, September 01, 2016

  • Thursday, September 01, 2016
  • Elder of Ziyon

We have previously looked at arguments made by BDSers that boycotts of Israel are considered protected free speech and any legislation against BDS is a violation of the Constitution. Both those assertions are very wrong.

I just came across a new paper that describes in much more detail why under US law, boycotting Israel is not protected by the First Amendment, as the boycotters keep claiming.

The most compelling part of the argument comes from an incident that occurred in the 1980s:

In International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL-CIO v Allied International, Inc., 17 a case that was decided little more than a month after oral arguments in Claiborne, the Supreme Court found that boycotts impeding United States commerce that are political protests intended to punish foreign nations for their offshore conduct may be limited by the government.

The Longshoremen case is illustrative as it includes two important and distinct legal elements: a federal law that prohibits boycott activity (which also exists in the case of BDS Movement boycotts, in the form of the Export Administration Act) and a determination of the permissibility of such prohibition under the First Amendment.

The Longshoremen case was couched in facts strikingly similar to that of the illegal BDS Movement boycotts of Israel.18 At the time, the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan. In response, the United States undertook a series of boycott and embargo actions including prohibitions on the sale of certain goods to the Soviet Union.19 As part of that embargo, however, the United States explicitly exempted certain goods, including those that were to be loaded and unloaded by the union in Longshoremen.

Notwithstanding the government’s directives on the scope of the embargo, the union unilaterally expanded the embargo and instituted a blanket boycott on the handling of any and all cargo from the Soviet Union.21 The president of the union, Thomas Gleason, explained that the union felt compelled to act in contravention of the government’s foreign relations policy because “[p]eople are upset and they refuse to continue the business as usual policy as long as the Russians insist on being international bully boys.”

As a result, the union refused to handle the cargo of a company that dealt in wood products from the Soviet Union (which products were explicitly exempted from the government’s embargo).23 The boycotted company registered a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that the union was engaging in an unlawful boycott under section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act24 and also filed suit against the union in federal court (the suit was filed under the Labor Management Relations Act, which provided for a private right of action for victims of unlawful boycotts).25 When the Supreme Court took up the case, it decided that the applicable provisions of the National Labor Relations Act did not infringe the union’s First Amendment rights. In so finding, the Court explained:
Application of [the prohibition on boycotts] to the [union’s] activity in this case will not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of the [union] and its members. We have consistently rejected the claim that secondary picketing by labor unions in violation of [the prohibition on boycotts] is protected activity under the First Amendment. It would seem even clearer that conduct designed not to communicate but to coerce merits still less consideration under the First Amendment. . . . There are many ways in which a union and its individual members may express their opposition to Russian foreign policy without infringing upon the rights of others.26
A boycott is not speech, it is coercion.
In Longshoremen, the Supreme Court had to determine whether federal law...could restrict boycott activity in the United States without violating the First Amendment rights of the actors. It is from this general legal question that an unambiguous rule emanates: where a federal law regulates boycott activity and the purpose of that law is a legitimate expression of national policy in the realm of foreign relations and commerce, and the law does not relate to the suppression of speech on substantive matters subject to constitutional protections, the First Amendment does not protect the boycott activity.
(h/t EK)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz



follow me

Follow by Email


Share on Whatsapp


For $18 donation

Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts Ever


Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون

This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 12 years and over 25,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.


Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options

One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!



The Jerusalem Report:"A seemingly indefatigable one-man operation, armed only with a computer, chutzpa and stamina."

Algemeiner: "Fiercely intelligent and erudite"

Omri: "Elder is one of the best established and most respected members of the jblogosphere..."
Atheist Jew:"Elder of Ziyon probably had the greatest impression on me..."
Soccer Dad: "He undertakes the important task of making sure that his readers learn from history."
AbbaGav: "A truly exceptional blog..."
Judeopundit: "[A] venerable blog-pioneer and beloved patriarchal figure...his blog is indispensable."
Oleh Musings: "The most comprehensive Zionist blog I have seen."
Carl in Jerusalem: "...probably the most under-recognized blog in the JBlogsphere as far as I am concerned."
Aussie Dave: "King of the auto-translation."
The Israel Situation:The Elder manages to write so many great, investigative posts that I am often looking to him for important news on the PalArab (his term for Palestinian Arab) side of things."
Tikun Olam: "Either you are carelessly ignorant or a willful liar and distorter of the truth. Either way, it makes you one mean SOB."
Mondoweiss commenter: "For virulent pro-Zionism (and plain straightforward lies of course) there is nothing much to beat it."
Didi Remez: "Leading wingnut"

Interesting Blogs


Abbas liar Academic fraud administrivia al-Qaeda algeria American Jews Amnesty analysis anti-semitism antisemitism apartheid arab refugees Arafat archaeology art ASHREI B'tselem bahrain Balfour bbc BDS BDSFail Bedouin Beitunia beoz book review Brant Rosen breaking the silence Campus antisemitism Cardozo Chakindas Chanukah Christians circumcision Clark Kent Community Standards conspiracy theories Cyprus Daled Amos Daphne Anson David Applebaum Davis report DCI-P Divest This double standards Egypt Elder gets results ElderToons Electronic Intifada Embassy EoZ Trump symposium eoz-symposium EoZNews eoztv Erekat Erekat lung transplant EU Euro-Mid Observer European antisemitism Facebook jail Fake Civilians 2014 Farrakhan Fatah featured Features fisking flotilla Forest Rain Forward free gaza freedom of press palestinian style future martyr Gary Spedding gaza Gaza Platform George Galloway George Soros German Jewry gideon levy gilad shalit gisha Goldstone Report Good news Grapel Guardian guest post gunness Haaretz Hadassah hamas Hamas war crimes Hananya Naftali hasbara Hasby 2014 Hasby 2016 Hasby 2018 hate speech Hebron helen thomas hezbollah history Hizballah Holocaust Holocaust denial honor killing HRW Human Rights Humanitarian crisis humor huor Hypocrisy ICRC IDF Ilan Pappe impossible peace incitement Indonesia international law intransigence iran Iraq Islamic Judeophobia Islamism Israel Loves America Israeli culture Israeli high-tech J Street jabalya jeremy bowen Jerusalem jewish fiction Jewish Voice for Peace jihad jimmy carter John Kerry jokes jonathan cook Jordan Joseph Massad Juan Cole Judaism Judea-Samaria Judean Rose Kairos Karl Vick Keith Ellison ken roth khalid amayreh Khaybar Lebanon leftists Linda Sarsour Linkdump lumish mahmoud zahar Malaysia max blumenthal Mazen Adi McGraw-Hill media bias Methodist Michael Ross Miftah Missionaries moderate Islam Mohammed Assaf Mondoweiss moonbats Morocco Mudar Zahran music Muslim Brotherhood Nakba Nation of Islam Natural gas Nazi Netanyahu News nftp NGO NIF Noah Phillips norpac NYT Occupation offbeat Omar Barghouti Only in Israel Opinion oxfam PA corruption PalArab lies Palestine Papers pallywood pchr PCUSA Peace Now Peter Beinart Petra MB poetry Poland poll Poster Preoccupied Prisoners propaganda Proud to be Zionist Puar Purim purimshpiel Putin Qaradawi Qassam calendar Quora Rafah Ray Hanania real liberals reference Richard Falk Richard Silverstein Right of return Rivkah Lambert Adler Robert Werdine rogel alpher roger cohen roger waters Rutgers Saeb Erekat Saudi Arabia saudi vice self-death self-death palestinians sex crimes SFSU shechita sheikh tamimi Shujaiyeh Simchat Torah Simona Sharoni SodaStream South Africa Speech stamps Superman Syria Tarabin Temple Mount Terrorism This is Zionism Thomas Friedman TOI Trump Tunisia Turkey UCI UK UN UNDP unesco unhrc UNICEF United Arab Emirates Unity unrwa UNRWA hate unrwa reports UNRWA-USA unwra Varda Vic Rosenthal Washington wikileaks work accident X-washing Y. Ben-David Yemen YMikarov zahran Ziesel zionist attack zoo Zvi

Blog Archive