I forgot to check the author.

Ben Norton has been published in Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada apart from Salon, but I couldn't find anything about him or his writings that seemed inappropriate. I suppose you're just trying to deflect from the actual subject, which is whether it's OK or not to stifle people's right to express a political opinion.

Personally, I think that free speech is important, and that Cuomo should stop attacking it.

As to legality, businesses are not allowed to refuse servicing Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews, etc.

Same for BDS hate discrimination against the Jewish state.

LOL

for all of BDS is logically sound.

I know that it's easy to fall for simplified arguments like that, but don't be surprised if some people may disagree with you. It's quite significant that I haven't seen any qualified defense of Cuomo's attacks on free speech, not here on DU, nor anywhere else.

Do you have any opinion on whether Cuomo's bill is trying to curb free speech and its constitutionality?

You are implicitly saying that an organization spending money is equal to speech. OK, the Supreme Court agrees with you on that, e.g., Citizen's United.

Nonetheless, governments often use laws to influence such actions. For example,
private organizations are free to spend their resources as they want as long as it does not violate criminal law, but they can't expect the government to want to do business with them.

Title IX: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.


What about a business that refuses to serve gays? Isn't that speech? Well, no, they might be charged with violations of the Civil Rights Act, or other discrimination laws, and the government could also refuse to do business with them.

These laws have been tested and are constitutional. There are certainly people who disagree with them, and there are certainly opportunities for private organizations to do choose not to be open to the public at all and to act in ways that the rest of us may not approve, but even though they won't be jailed or fined, they can't expect government support.

Just because Ben Norton and friends may want the constitution to be against Israel, doesn't mean it is and sloppy reasoning won't make it so.

On another point, Ben Norton's introduction of "McCarthyism" to describe support of Israel is a new one, but not surprising. Zionists are now called every bad thing in the world: Apartheid, Fascist, Racist, Genocidal, Colonialist, Imperialist, and now McCarthyite. This is getting kind of transparent - the projection of all the sins of the modern world onto one small country.

My opinion about Cuomo's bill is based on articles like these:

The Fight Against BDS Just Took A Frightening Turn In New York
Source: Thinkprogress, JUN 6, 2016

As to Cuomo, I find this similar to many US states not wanting to do business with North Carolina after that state passed legislation discriminating against LGBTQ's. In a very similar way, BDS discriminates against the Jewish nation - and only the Jewish nation so there's no reason NY state needs to do business with certain organizations discriminating against the Jewish state.

BDS is about ending Israeli Human rights abuses in the occupied territories, and there's no actual BDS being done against any company that isn't connected to the occupation or the settlements. The only anti-BDS list sofar is the one from Illinois which only has companies that refrain from doing business with the settlements on its list:


Source: http://forward.com/news/338058/did-illinois-bungle-first-in-nation-anti-bds-blacklist/

While there are some superficial similarities between the Free Palestine Movement and other pro-Palestinian organizations, that particular organization is a racist organization with murky goals. It's not mainstream, as most pro-Palestinian advocacy are against racism and human rights violations, and BDS is a tool for that.

You've tried to argue that BDS is racist on several occasions, and every time you've been completely unsuccessful. At least you've managed to prove that some racists support BDS too, but it doesn't make BDS in itself a racist endeavor as long as it doesn't target companies because they're Jewish.

....against the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM) or ISM. Where are they? Show me.

Mondoweiss supports them, so does ElectronicIntifada, JVP, SJP, ACRI, Max Blumenthal, Jeremy Corbyn, David Duke, Alison Weir of IfAmericansKnew, Hamas, Hezbollah and every other gutter anti-semite associated with or working alongside the BDS movement.

But prove me wrong, please. I'm begging you....

Most either lie or are willfully deluded.

At least Hamas is honest & everyone knows where they're coming from.

Of course, most BDS'ers support and defend Hamas...pretending that equates to support of Palestinians in general.

Barghouti at least admits that if BDS goals were achieved that there wouldn't be an Israel.

I support some of the articles that are published in Mondoweiss, so when the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees, which in some way supports the Free Palestine Movement, publishes an open letter protesting against Cuomo's unconstitutional clampdown on free speech, I'm suddenly connected to the FPM and apparently their views are my views...

Well, that explains why you think BDS is anti-Semitic - apparently, if a single person who supports BDS is a racist, then everyone who supports BDS are racists... I think your linkage is weak, and it doesn't match reality - I'm not an anti-Semite and I don't share the beliefs of the FPM...

But back to the OP - do you think that the right to free speech is outdated and should be outlawed altogether?

In fact, you've got it backwards. The reason that BDS attracts antisemites is because it is antisemitic at its core. Suppose you are not an antisemite? Does that change the nature of the movement just because you're not antisemitic? Of course it doesn't. You are one person. What you think of the movement doesn't really matter as far as the movement is concerned. What matters is what the leadership of the movement believe, and how they lead. BDS was formed by the Palestinians as a weapon to use against Israel's existence. That's why the movement calls for implementation of Right of Return. Until that changes, then the movement is antisemitic. Does that mean that everyone who supports BDS is antisemitc? Not necessarily. It does mean that they support an antisemitic movement, either with or without knowledge of the true nature of BDS. But you don't really have the excuse that you don't know, because it has been explained to you ad nauseum.

And I don't think that allowing Palestinians to return to their ancestral homeland is anti-Semitic either.

I believe that every person should have equal rights in the land they live, and also that every person should have the right to live in their ancestral homeland - those beliefs are not anti-Semitic...

You can't even name one popular Palestinian - a leader you identify with, someone you admire - which shows the danger of Palestinian right of return. You know how that would lead to more strife, more terror, killing.

If you can't identify or support even one Palestinian whose views you agree with - why would you expect Israelis to embrace millions of people you wouldn't want to engage with? In effect as well as intent (since it's been proven to you ad nauseum) you support a situation that endangers Jews both within Israel and outside it. If Jews lose control of Israel, we truly have nowhere to go to be safe.

And that's why BDS is considered antisemitic at its core.

Now how are we wrong?

There's nothing that says that Israel won't be able to build housing and provide jobs for future immigrants of Palestinian descent.