Let's hear from Hill himself: http://www2.philly.com/philly/opini...palestine-israel-united-nations-20181201.html
Perhaps, but I've had it up to here with the ADL/AIPAC conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
For sure, you do have people that mask their antisemitic leaning with criticism of Israel, but you also have defenders of Israel ready to label anyone antisemitic even for what can be rightful criticism of Israel. Criticism of Israel was probably the original de-platforming movement, actually in the USA it was probably Christian groups de-platforming speakers that they considered In-moral (unmoral?)
Why? Because it reminds people of the position pre-1948? The Zionists (israeli proponents of a greater Zion) invented the phrase, it was in Likud's founding charter. https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east...river-to-the-sea-slogan-to-zionists-1.6746730
It means the amalgamation of the israeli body politic into a single state encompassing all of historic Palestine, in the same way that the greater Zionism project of Netanyahu does. Only one version is a democratic state that respects the rights of all its citizens, and the other is a racist ethnostate based on the Palestinians remaining as Helots on their own land.
If this is true this can't be legal, right? It's like a loyalty oath to a foreign power. A CHILDREN’S SPEECH PATHOLOGIST who has worked for the last nine years with developmentally disabled, autistic, and speech-impaired elementary school students in Austin, Texas, has been told that she can no longer work with the public school district, after she refused to sign an oath vowing that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel or “otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic harm” on that foreign nation. A lawsuit on her behalf was filed early Monday morning in a federal court in the Western District of Texas, alleging a violation of her First Amendment right of free speech. https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17...k4qADp8qFQk8j8Pxsqjs9BANf-BBFcwcuEBWRyBouxeRw
Never heard of various things under the rubric of "Anti-Boycott Act"? https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-disgraceful-anti-boycott-act/ This is only the most recent iteration. These sorts of things have been around for a long time, and they are often binding on all large (and small) companies doing business under Department of Commerce or State rules, and their employees. I have been subject to compliance training on that subject both for government contracting and private (huge) enterprise direct work since starting my career in 2001. Extending that to a private practitioner not subject to DoC or DoS rules seems wildly out-of-bounds.
In the state of New York, you can boycott other American states (Andrew Cuomo effected a boycott of North Carolina): https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/north-carolina-lgbt-discrimination-cuomo but not israel: https://www.thenation.com/article/a...-is-a-clear-violation-of-the-first-amendment/
So if you sign one and then post something critical of Israel online or were in a BDS march and someone "reported" you, your contract could be canceled like this teacher's was? I could see Trump pushing for simillar legislation to protect Saudi Arabia's fee-fees.
Generally, it isn't quite that insane. The main thing they want to avoid is employees participating on their own in a boycott to where it affects the company's doing business. At large enough companies, they can often accommodate an employee (putting them on a different project) as long as the employee hasn't obviously violated the act.
Not really free speech, but political correctness. Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness, and race isn’t either. The Atlantic | Yascha Mounk https://getpocket.com/explore/item/americans-strongly-dislike-pc-culture?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Looks like political correctness involves "when I get criticized for something you think is offensive, even though you know I didn't really mean it like that. " hate speech is when "you insult my community and you know damn well you were doing it on purpose and not just kidding like I was yesterday."
"Political correctness" is a crappy term anyway because it means whatever somebody wants it to mean. For some people, it means "I can't call black people 'n*****s' anymore." For others, it means "I gotta write 'women' as 'womyn.'"
Found a passage that addresses this: One obvious question is what people mean by “political correctness.” In the extended interviews and focus groups, participants made clear that they were concerned about their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them. But since the survey question did not define political correctness for respondents, we cannot be sure what, exactly, the 80 percent of Americans who regard it as a problem have in mind. So for the most part, you're probably right.
I don't know what 'political correctness' really is. But I do know what 'respect' is. People who say they are 'anti-PC' generally have no respect for people and cultures that are different from what they know, and oftentimes they aren't willing to explore let alone understand why people are so different, but in many respects, compatible to each other.
Somewhat, here is an article on how political correctness tries to include criticism of religion. https://www.atheistrev.com/2005/03/political-correctness-and-religion.html?m=1
Openness to other people practicing their religion? Sure. Using it like Jerry Falwell Jr does to spread division and hatred? Nope. Open season just like Nazis. First google on Jerry here's what I got: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...r-questions-evangelical-leader-over-images-of