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

  • @Boddhisatva
    link
    411 months ago

    The headline is misleading. According to the text of the article, the law actually only bans companies that do business with the state from engaging in such boycotts. If you’re company refuses to give ad money to Musk, then you don’t get any state contracts.

    I doubt the law is unconstitutional, but it is pretty stupid. Larger companies that care about their image enough to refuse to advertise on hate filled networks are also going to be the companies that provide the best services at the best prices. The state would be stuck using smaller companies that would charge them more and provide lower quality services.

    • admiralteal
      link
      fedilink
      1311 months ago

      Compelled speech is a first amendment violation. Telling a company they need to take positive political action to score a state contract is undoubtedly a violation of the 1st.

    • @bassomitron
      link
      English
      411 months ago

      Not only is the law definitely unconstitutional, it’s virtually unenforceable. A company can easily make a statement that they refuse to give money to another company for endless reasons. It’s just hollow virtue signalling, something conservatives excel at.

    • @afraid_of_zombies
      link
      011 months ago

      The law is constitutional if the Pope wants it and Thomas gets a new boat. Otherwise no.