I am a First Amendment absolutist, and recognize that antisemitism legislation could potentially violate it - but HR 867 is not that. Since 1977, U.S. law has criminally punished American companies that comply with boycotts implemented by foreign sovereigns. This was a response to the Arab League Boycott of Israel - which was not about free speech, but about using economic coercion to stifle free association. In fact, the legislation gave American companies the freedom to rebuff boycott demands by Syria, et al - by pointing out the great federal penalties they faced. All that the new bill does is add "international organizations" like the UN & EU to the scope of the prohibition, since they too wield governmental power. Currently, @FranceskAlbs is demanding BDS of a Christian group in Holland for its pro-Israel stance: making it a crime to comply with her dictat has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Indeed, federal courts have upheld the "Arab League" boycott provisions against constitutional challenge - and adding the UN changes nothing. History proves the point. These laws have been on the books for our entire lifetimes. They helped defang the Arab League Boycott, while causing no harm to private anti-Israel speech, or grassroots BDS - which has flourished in recent decades. I share Charlie's vigilance, and his opposition to antisemitism needs no proof. But he has got this one wrong.
See Tweet