The new bill comes after Andrew Bailey vowed to investigate companies pulling business from X, formerly Twitter over hate speech.

The new bill comes after Andrew Bailey vowed to investigate companies pulling business from X, formerly Twitter over hate speech.

  • TechyDad@lemmy.world
    11·
    1 year ago

    So that goes both ways, right? Right wing businesses can’t refuse to deal with companies just because they are “woke,” right?

    Time for someone to form Woke Antifa Rainbows, Inc and then sue right wing companies for refusing to do business with them.

    • n1ckn4m3@kbin.social
      8·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t actually, the law is written specifically to disallow people from boycotting companies that destroy the environment, hate LGBTQ, actively promote anti-LGBTQ ideals, etc., but it DOESN’T stop the alternate – the right can still boycott people who support LGBTQ rights, people who support working to fight climate change, etc. Just another one-sided law attempting to illegalize entirely legal business decisions by the left while allowing the right to continue saying it’s OK to deny people wedding cakes if you hate the gays.

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        5·
        1 year ago

        I figured as much. When people (or companies) say “I don’t want to be associated with statements like this,” the right’s response depends on whose statements they are. If they are statements from the right, then it’s “cancel culture” and must be banned. If they are statements from the left, then it’s just Free Speech and no action against those saying it is allowed for any reason.

        It’s such an obvious double standard.

      • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
        3·
        1 year ago

        the law is written specifically to disallow people from boycotting companies that destroy the environment, hate LGBTQ, actively promote anti-LGBTQ ideals, etc., but it DOESN’T stop the alternate

        That’s correct! The law is written to be non-commutative. That is it works one way, but the lack of indicating the other, implicitly indicates that it is not true. Here are the sections from the bill.

        (a) Engages in the exploration, production, utilization, transportation, sale, or manufacturing of, fossil fuel-based energy, timber, mining, or agriculture;
        (b) Engages in, facilitates, or supports the manufacture, import, distribution, marketing or advertising, sale, or lawful use of firearms, ammunition or component parts and accessories of firearms or ammunition;
        © Does not meet, is not expected to meet, or does not commit to meet environmental standards or disclosure criteria, in particular to eliminate, reduce, offset, or disclose greenhouse gas emissions;
        (d) Does not meet, is not expected to meet, or does not commit to meet any specified criteria with respect to the compensation and composition of the company’s corporate board and the employees of the company;
        (e) Does not facilitate, is not expected to facilitate, or does not commit to facilitate access to abortion, sex or gender change, or transgender surgery or medical treatments;

        As you can see they are worded to have meaning in a single direction but aren’t reflexive in language. So this allows people to boycott the opposite of the above, but prohibits boycotting anything above.

        It’s literally a law compelling conservative belief. And they know it’s not going to survive a legal challenge, but they also know they’ll get something like two or three decades out it before being completely overturned. It’s literally a legislative Hail, Mary.