235

The new bill comes after Andrew Bailey vowed to investigate companies pulling business from X, formerly Twitter over hate speech.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago

First Amendment violation. Won't go anywhere.

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 38 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

And, you're putting a lot of faith in the SCOTUS to actually do the right thing.

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I was describing the best case scenario.

[-] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

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?

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] frustratedphagocytosis@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

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

[-] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 2 points 11 months ago

Time to pull out ~~in~~ from Texas.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 6 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

What's the protected class in this case?

[-] ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago
[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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..

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 11 months ago

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.

this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
235 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4317 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS