ad-free
A marketplace for speech.
82,357 Hours of Speech
help
help
515,568 Transcriptions
add title (free)
add title (free)
406 Sources
add source €0.99
add source €0.99
Search:
Newsbud
Title: Banning Boycotts: Un-American & Unconstitutional
Published: 2017-12-28
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7BfVpbNqzc
Title: Banning Boycotts: Un-American & Unconstitutional
Published: 2017-12-28
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7BfVpbNqzc
1/17
How can this minute percentage have so much power in terms of lobby and money to basically, I'm going to go as far as they ruling the country? Nobody has a first amendment quite like ours. I'm going to sound like Trump. First is the greatest first amendment. It's bigger and better. So it's not just a question of constitutionality, it's a question of complete hypocrisy. Welcome everyone to2/17
this newsbud round table discussion. Joining us today is Mr. Paul LaRoudey who received a PhD in Applied Linguistics from Georgetown University. He was a full bright Hayes lecturer in Lebanon, supervisor of a Ford Foundation training project in Lebanon, and a US government advisor in Saudi Arabia. We also have Mr. Mark Lime and joining us today who is a lawyer who represents whistleblowers from his office in3/17
Venice, California. Cases he has prosecuted have resulted in the recovery of over $600 million to the taxpayers. And hosting today's round table is the founder and editor of Newsbud Subel Edmonds. Welcome everyone to the program. Subel, where shall we begin? Here is how it started. Why I became so obsessed with this topic. About a year and a half ago, I was reading an article and I4/17
came across this new law passed by six or seven states saying that certain states were going to ban. They were banning boycotting Israel. So they were basically illegalizing. Right now I know I'm talking with someone who's an attorney here as well. So I know that word maybe doesn't really exist, but I like to use an illegalizing boycotting Israel. So here is where things stand. A group5/17
of 43 senators, 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats, want to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Carden of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment. Anyone guilty of violating its prohibition will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,0006/17
and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. Now am I correct to assume that this is one of the most belligerent attacks on the First Amendment rights wherever you stand on the issue of Israel. Let's start with that. Mark, as an attorney, correct me. And I would stand any correction. There's nothing to correct here at all. I mean, this is an7/17
astonishing attack. It's brazen. It's clear. It clearly goes against very well established constitutional law. The Supreme Court has already been there. It addressed this issue in the context of civil rights boycotts back in the 1950s and 60s and said boycotts are part of free speech. And you get to vote with your money. One of the really perverse things about this is that if you accept for8/17
a minute, even just a minute, the idea behind the citizen united doctrine that a corporation can have its own free speech and choose to spend its money as it wishes by buying politicians to say that we cannot spend that same money where we want to and where we do not want to affect policy is an astonishing, astonishing position. You were watching a preview of an exclusive9/17
one-hour plus newsbud roundtable. The moment I saw this and I want to be corrected here if I'm wrong, I said, well, this is one of the biggest assaults on First Amendment. Israel's objective is to shut down criticism and that is what this is about. And the fact they are going to these measures, these effectively, if I can call them unconstitutional measures, heavy-handed measures, aggressive measures in10/17
order to shut down opinions, demonstrates that they are reaching the end of their ability to do this. No, the laws don't count. The point is to crush opinions that they see are working against them. They have said so in several places that this is warfare. It's warfare by another means. Let's take care of it, carry it even further. Wouldn't it be crazy to say with these11/17
types of things setting precedence, for example, soon, mega corporations are going to use this laws? Let's say we get together and say, OK, Google has become the extension of the CIA and the big government or Twitter and less boycott them or Amazon, which, you know, you may end up becoming the next CIA director, the guy who owns it, the way things are going in our nation.12/17
They can just go ahead and pour money into these congressmen, the so-called representatives campaign and their pockets and pass these laws. I mean, would it be crazy to say that this would pave the way towards that kind of a co-file situation? No, first, it wouldn't be crazy at all. But before we even get to that, there is a long and very dishonorable history in the United13/17
States of suppressing free speech. So there's no question about it that corporate control of free speech is going to be a problem. The full 70-minute video is available for members at newsbud.com or you can watch it now at Newsbud Vimeo on demand. Of course, there's the incident in Texas where this suburb of Houston, amazingly, you know, was insisted that before you could get flood relief, you14/17
had to sign a certification that you were not supporting a boycott investment or sanctions against Israel. Well, partly by money and organization and so forth, but they also have what they call the Sianin network. The Sianin network is one where they have Zionist volunteers in key positions where they can make a difference. And when they work together, then they can make a big difference, including spreading15/17
disinformation and pushing points of view and so forth. This is a lot of what goes into deciding not only what the public hears, but what the public thinks. So to make our positions clear for our viewers, it is I would be standing up and speaking up on the issue such as freedom of expression, a five-year-old American kid or any kid who's going to school here in16/17
the United States can draw anything he or she wants, whether there's a Christmas tree or whether there's a set of candles there that they are drawing. I mean, would you agree with that statement or would you say no? You know, in some cases, it's hate speech and it should be illegalized, but in some cases it's not and it should go on. Paul? It sounds like it