Boycotting can hardly be considered protected speech if that's all it takes to silence it
"Boycott Israel because of their treatment of Palestinians." A perfectly acceptable political statement.
"Boycott Israel because they are a bunch of greedy Jews." An obviously anti-Semitic statement.
The problem is that people who believe the latter will often say the former. This causes opponents of the latter to doubt the authenticity of people who say the former. Some people who oppose the former might also accuse people of the latter to discredit them. It becomes can quickly become confusing, but it should be clear that a boycott can clearly have both appropriate and inappropriate motivations.
There's no evidence of any BDS leaders saying this.
On the other hand, there's a bundle of evidence of vehement racism in the highest levels of the Israeli government (calls for "racial purity", collective punishment against arabs, "all arabs grow up to be terrorists", etc).
The fact that apartheid south africa was closely allied with israel, shared a nuclear project and was taken down by a BDS movement is, of course, not a coincidence.
The veneer of anti-racism has seemingly been co-opted to support a white european colonialist project behind an apartheid state that purports to represent a race (again, like apartheid South Africa).
>it should be clear that a boycott can clearly have both appropriate and inappropriate motivations.
It should be clear that evidence-wise, being anti boycott most likely indicates at the very least stark naiveté and perhaps darker, more racist motives.
I don't believe fairly arbitrating expression based on beliefs is feasible, and I do believe it is actively harmful
There's a trend towards allowing complainants to define what actions are discriminatory, and therefore criminal. It's weird.
The Majority.
> Some arbiter
Nope. The Majority.
> if that's all it takes to silence it
Nope. anti-semetic is kinda big deal. We all should treat it as such and run from it like fire.
I believe weakening protections such as free speech, which are used by the vulnerable to call attention to their plights, is much more likely to hurt Jewish people than allowing ostensibly antisemitic expression to exist
The minority here fought long and hard to stop it, lost the battle (the team came and played their games against our local teams) but now are recognised as heros.
No. It is not the majority who decides what is right and wrong.
