RMS, Hosts Must Support Boycott?

[Oleg Goldshmidt]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Marc Volovic <marcvolovic at me.com> wrote:
> Being significantly less conversant with US corporate law than e.g. Israeli corporate law, I'll take your comments at face value.
>
> Is RMS, by agreeing to the conditions set by the financial contributors to his visit, in violation of US law?

#include <ianal.h>

Maybe. Maybe not.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50a/usc_sec_50a_00002407----000-.html
http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm

FSF is an NPO, not a business (the anti-boycott laws are primarily
about business activities). It is not clear to me whether RMS's
visit+lectures+fees+etc. constitute business activity. His expenses
are paid, maybe he will receive a honorarium for his appearance - it
well may be that it constitutes "business activity".

If FSF falls under the anti-boycott law (and I don't know that) then
not only must RMS refuse to visit the PA, he (i.e., FSF) must report
the "request" (this is the legal term in the context) to the US
authorities. An important point is that one does not need to support
the boycott as a matter of policy to break the law, it is enough to
"co-operate" in an individual instance (including by inaction).

To summarize in generic terms: generally, AFAIK, boycotts are legal.
Business activity supporting a *foreign* boycott is illegal in the US.

Having said that (and reiterating that IANAL), here are a couple of
things to ponder.

1) Independent boycotts are allowed, so if FSF itself boycotts Israeli
universities it is probably permitted by law to do so (Geoff alluded
to this possibility). If RMS says that it is his personal decision
then he is likely (assuming his trip is in his FSF capacity - see
below) in a conflict of interest (I mentioned it in an earlier post).

2) It may be that there is a loophole in the law - the law concerns
boycotts by countries. If RMS's sponsors are private individuals maybe
this will work for him. On the other hand it may be possible to prove
that the condition is materially similar to the "official" boycott,
and the loophole is thereby plugged.

Another summary: whoever wants to consider reporting FSF/RMS to the US
authorities (or sue) should consult a qualified lawyer with experience
in EAR/anti-boycott law.

> Mind - to the best of my understanding - he has not gone BDS publicly, only stated in private email conversations that he will adhere to the conditions set. Does that also contravene?

As Geoff mentioned (correctly, IMHO), he discusses this in his
capacity as the President of FSF. I suppose his trip is also in that
capacity, not as a private individual.

BTW, no one should be surprised that RMS supports this boycott - much
of his activity concerns boycotting this or that, once you think about
it.

-- 
Oleg Goldshmidt | pub at goldshmidt.org