Timeline for Which European countries have laws that closely resemble the Russian law against discrediting the armed forces?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28 at 16:48 | comment | added | Barmar | Which part of the question requires "proving a negative"? | |
| Feb 28 at 3:30 | comment | added | littleadv | @Obie2.0 absolutely, when I was referring to the criminal enforcement I was referring to the Federal law which prohibits adhering to foreign countries' sanctions. Basically, the US prohibits domestically the behavior that it enforces internationally. On brand. | |
| Feb 28 at 3:25 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | States resort to much weaker measures like preventing the state government from contracting companies engaging in BDS—which is more or less the extent of most of these state anti-BDS laws—precisely because boycotting foreign countries is not currently illegal under US anti-discrimination law, and they are uncertain that they could successfully pass a law defining such boycotts as illegal discrimination that would pass constitutional review. Not that a few states are not trying now.... | |
| Feb 28 at 3:23 | comment | added | littleadv | @Obie2.0 the US government (or State governments) cannot force companies to do or not do business with anyone (pending SCOTUS discussions about the Republican lawsuits against tech companies). What they can regulate is whether the motivation is business-related or nefarious. Baker refusing to serve gay people is nefarious in nature, whereas a baker refusing service to people not wearing shirts is not. Not exactly sure what was the point you're trying to make, but there's a distinction between "not doing business" and discrimination. | |
| Feb 28 at 3:13 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | I'd have to disagree. The Trump law might stand because it only affects foreign boycotts: i.e., if the Arab League requests that a company boycott Israel, the company cannot fulfill that request. The state laws almost entirely apply to government contractors. These laws do produce a chilling effect, so from my perspective they are kind of negative, but if a private company wants to of its own initiative not do business with Israel, and is willing to accept the opprobrium and forgo government contracts, it can. | |
| Feb 28 at 2:53 | comment | added | littleadv | @Dolphin613Motorboat why? It's pretty consistent. The US has been acting against the Arab boycott since the 1970s and it's been determined to be constitutional not to allow this. Similarly to France, in some States it's based on plain reading of the anti-discrimination laws, in others (especially those with weaker anti-discrimination protections like Arkansas) special laws are being enacted. The US is a bit more weird in a lot of other things, but with this they're pretty consistent | |
| Feb 28 at 2:52 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | In re the Spain/ECHR: If you read the actual Baldassi decision, the court ruled that the French law was utterly ridiculous, prohibiting any call to boycott any product from anywhere, but left open the possibility that narrower laws would be ok. "the Court noted that French law, as interpreted and applied in the present case, prohibited any call for a boycott of products on account of their geographical origin whatever the tenor, grounds and circumstances of such call." Essentially, if a boycott is suspected to be antisemitic it might be bannable, but this French take was too broad. | |
| Feb 28 at 2:39 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | And US landscape is also a bit more weird aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/21/… | |
| Feb 28 at 2:36 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | First time I heard of it. It's linked in wikipedia. Other coverage would be in Spanish I guess. | |
| Feb 28 at 2:34 | comment | added | littleadv | @Dolphin613Motorboat any reference to this anywhere outside the Israeli press? I actually haven't heard of this one, although not following European politics all that closely | |
| Feb 28 at 2:32 | comment | added | littleadv | Hmmm... The Trump-era law codified regulations that were issued under different authorities since the Carter administration | |
| Feb 28 at 2:30 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | "the thing with Europe is that the ECHR ruling applies to all of them," it looks like Spain disagreed. Their supreme court said something else in 2022 timesofisrael.com/… OTOH one would have to see exactly what's different between these rulings... The ECHR one was in 2020. | |
| Feb 28 at 2:29 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | With respect to the USA, incidentally, the Anti-Boycott Act (Trump-era, naturally) is definitely not a shining example of freedom of speech, but it is more limited than it seems, because it only applies to complying with foreign boycotts. So, for instance, a US company cannot participate in the Arab League boycott of Israel, but this does not stop them from creating their own boycott of Israel. This is why a lot of Republican states have been trying to pass laws penalizing government contractor companies who support BDS—because the existing laws are not stopping them. | |
| Feb 28 at 2:27 | comment | added | littleadv | @Dolphin613Motorboat the thing with Europe is that the ECHR ruling applies to all of them, so it doesn't really matter whether there's a law in France or Austria or whatsnot. Which makes it a bit boring. American and Israeli legislation are much more fun to read. They also compare better to Russia both in political populism and the general "patriotic" sentiment. | |
| Feb 28 at 2:24 | comment | added | littleadv | Yes, thanks. @Obie2.0 yes, I pointed it out in #3, but these are more tangible and recent examples than the French attempt of using 19th century law on the matter. | |
| Feb 28 at 2:24 | history | edited | littleadv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 85 characters in body
|
| Feb 28 at 2:21 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | "Some listed here" probably has the wrong link. I guess you meant to link to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… And it would probably make more sense to detail those a bit e.g. France rather than Israel & US. I'm starting to regret mentioning sanctions already... didn't expect there was this much to say just about that. | |
| Feb 28 at 2:20 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | Israel and the US are not European countries, though. | |
| Feb 28 at 2:15 | history | answered | littleadv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |