] I've seen a number of things like this over the years.
] While sometimes laws like that are designed to keep US
] companies from boycotting Israel or South Africa or Burma
] or black people, and sometimes even enforced, that's usually
] not the real purpose (unlike laws _requiring_ US companies to
] boycott Cuba or Iraq or France), just as the Foreign Corrupt
] Practices Act laws that forbid US companies from bribing
] foreign officials usually aren't intended to hunt down corrupt
] US companies.

Anti-boycott compliance has been mentioned on MemeStreams before, but not discussed. I want to know what you think about this. I find the idea uncomfortable, but I also find the specifics thorny.

Is boycotting someone an act of speech or of association, which should have first amendment protection? (Do I have a right to do business with other people of my choosing?)

Should it be legal for the government to prevent you from engaging in a boycott? (I.E. compel you to agree to trade with someone?)

Should it be legal for the government to compel you to engage in a boycott (i.e. economic sanctions against Cuba or North Korea)? If so, they why can't the government prevent a boycott as well?

Should it be legal for the government to prevent a company from refusing to do business with black people? If so, how is this different from anti-boycott enforcement?

Should it be legal for the government to prevent a company from doing business with North Korean people?

Re: Boycotting the Unwilling