{"id":70026,"date":"2019-05-25T17:00:51","date_gmt":"2019-05-25T15:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/?p=70026"},"modified":"2019-05-14T07:13:06","modified_gmt":"2019-05-14T05:13:06","slug":"14-05-46","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/?p=70026","title":{"rendered":"ANTI-BDS LAW RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN TEXAS"},"content":{"rendered":"<h5 style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.jpost.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"35%\" class=\"center alignleft\" alt=\"\" src=\"http:\/\/www.reunion68.com\/Biuletyn\/img\/jpost.png\"><\/a><span style=\"text-decoration: underline; color: #000080;\"><strong><a style=\"color: #000080; text-decoration: underline;\" href=\"https:\/\/www.jpost.com\/BDS-THREAT\/Anti-BDS-law-ruled-unconstitutional-in-Texas-588241\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">ANTI-BDS LAW RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN TEXAS<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>JERUSALEM POST STAFF<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<hr style=\"height: 15px; background: #d0e6fa; width: 100%;\">\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>This opinion runs counter to the binding Supreme Court precedent that ruled that ideological boycotts are not speech at all.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"100%\" class=\"aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/www.jpost.com\/HttpHandlers\/ShowImage.ashx?id=379428&amp;w=898&amp;h=628\"><span style=\"color: #999999;\"><em>The Texas House of Representatives in Austin, TX. (photo credit: REUTERS)<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">A federal judge ruled last week that Texas\u2019s anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions law is unconstitutional.<\/span><\/p>\n<div style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">A report published by the Jewish syndication service JNS quoted US District Judge Robert Pittman as explaining that, \u201cAt the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration and adherence\u2026.The purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular[,]\u201d is \u201cto protect unpopular individuals from retaliation\u2014and their ideas from suppression\u2014at the hands of an intolerant society.\u201d<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/div>\n<div style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">This opinion runs counter to the binding Supreme Court precedent that ruled that ideological boycotts are not speech at all, the article explained.<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/div>\n<div style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">A few weeks ago, Texas lawmakers voted to amend a law banning business with Israel boycotters after the application of the law was vexed by several incidents and at least one lawsuit.<\/span><\/div>\n<hr style=\"height: 15px; background: #d0e6fa; width: 100%;\">\n<div class=\"content-alignment\" id=\"content\">\n<div class=\"yt-uix-button-panel\" id=\"watch-description\">\n<div id=\"watch-description-text\" style=\"text-align: center;\">\n<p><em>Zawarto\u015b\u0107 publikowanych artyku\u0142\u00f3w i materia\u0142\u00f3w nie reprezentuje pogl\u0105d\u00f3w ani opinii Reunion&#8217;68,<\/em><em><br \/>\nani te\u017c webmastera Blogu Reunion&#8217;68, chyba ze jest to wyra\u017anie zaznaczone.<br \/>\nTwoje uwagi, linki, w\u0142asne artyku\u0142y lub wiadomo\u015bci prze\u015blij na adres:<br \/>\n<\/em><span style=\"color: #000080;\"><strong><em><a style=\"color: #000080;\" href=\"mailto:webmaster@reunion68.com\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">webmaster@reunion68.com<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<hr style=\"width: 100%;\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>ANTI-BDS LAW RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN TEXAS JERUSALEM POST STAFF This opinion runs counter to the binding Supreme Court precedent that ruled that ideological boycotts are not speech at all. The Texas House of Representatives in Austin, TX. (photo credit: REUTERS) A federal judge ruled last week that Texas\u2019s anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions law is unconstitutional. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[6],"tags":[26,24],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70026"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=70026"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70026\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":70372,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70026\/revisions\/70372"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=70026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=70026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=70026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}