New Article: Silverman, Free Speech Implications of US Anti-Boycott Regulations

Silverman, Matthew E. “The Free Speech Implications of US Anti-Boycott Regulations.” International Trade and Business Law Review 18 (2015): 1-30.

 
URL: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/itbla18&div=4

 
Abstract

This article provides an analysis of s 2407(a)(1)(D) of the Export Administration Act and its implications on Americans’ free speech rights. Section 2407(a)(1)(D) is a significant US anti-boycott regulation that prohibits American persons and companies from complying with unsanctioned foreign boycotts. This article analyses s 2407(a)(1)(D) within the context of the development and application of US anti-boycott legislation which grew out of a response to the Arab League Boycott of Israel. As well, this article examines the relevant First Amendment jurisprudence involving both commercial and political speech and argues that s 2407(a)(1)(D) should be subject to a strict-scrutiny analysis in order to account for the social and political interests often inherent within economic-boycott activity. This article concludes that the government interest in enforcing s 2407(a)(1)(D) is outweighed by the significant restrictions imposed on Americans’free speech rights, and thus, there is no justification for this regulation to be constitutionally upheld and enforced.

 

 

Cite: Cohen-Almagor, Religious, Hateful, and Racist Speech in Israel

Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. “Religious, Hateful, and Racist Speech in Israel.” Shofar 31.2 (2013): 95-117.

URL: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/shofar/v031/31.2.cohen-almagor.html

Abstract

This essay is a study in politics and law. It begins with an introductory background which explains Israel’s vulnerability as a Jewish, multicultural democracy in a hostile region, with significant schisms that divide the nation. In the next section I present the State Attorney’s stance regarding extreme statements made in the context of the disengagement from Gaza. I proceed by addressing the issue of religious incitement, both Jewish and Moslem. I argue that the State cannot sit idly by while senior officials incite racism and undermine its democratic values. Such officials should be discharged of all responsibilities. The State ought to weigh the costs of allowing hate speech as well as the risks involved, and balance these against the costs and risks to democracy and free speech associated with censorship.