• Local
  • Pittsfield, MA
  • more weather >

EDITORIAL: Neal surprisingly unschooled on free-speech issues

More Info
By Tuesday, Sep 19, 2017 Viewpoints 8

It has been said before that — and forgive us for channeling F. Scott Fitzgerald — politicians are different from you and me. Nowhere is the simple maxim of the Lost Generation’s preeminent writer more evident than in U.S. Rep. Richard Neal’s performance during Friday’s town-hall-style forum at Berkshire Community College in Pittsfield. Click here to see the full forum on video.

Congressman Richard E. Neal speaking at the Town Hall forum at Berkshire Community College. Photo: Ben Hillman

The congressman is a smooth-talking operator fluent in a variety of issues, most notably tax policy — an expertise borne no doubt from his 24 years on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. But despite his extensive knowledge of tariffs and revenue raising, Neal showed a troubling unfamiliarity with free speech issues in fielding questions from audience members about his sponsorship of a bill that raises obvious First Amendment questions.

Neal co-sponsored a highly controversial bill, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which opposes a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution urging countries to pressure companies to divest from Israel. The controversy lies mostly in the second part of the bill, which prohibits Americans engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from supporting an international boycott of Israel. Violations are punishable by a fine of up to a $1 million and 20 years in prison.

On its face, the prohibition against participating in boycotts sounds like a glaring departure from the American tradition of free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union has attacked the bill as “antithetical to free speech protections enshrined in the First Amendment” and urged the Senate to reject it.

On the other hand, some reputable legal scholars have argued that “federal law has for decades generally banned participation in boycotts of friendly nations” and that such bans only place prohibitions on commercial activity, not on actual speech.

Be that as it may, Cheryl Hogan of Charlemont pleaded with Neal to reconsider his support of the legislation, noting to much applause that she sees “that law not only as really stepping on our constitutional rights to free speech, but also attacking the one powerful nonviolent resistance movement that there is to try to change what we see happening in the Middle East.”

Neal’s response was revealing. He said he would ask Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) for “clarification” in order “to eliminate the idea that there might be a problem with free speech.” Neal added that he had read the Congressional Research Service’s report on the legislation and “and I came to the conclusion that there is no threat to free speech” because “this is about commercial activity.”

After that brief defense of his sponsorship of the bill, Neal launched into an infomercial about his human rights record, noting that he had led the way in divesting Springfield’s stock portfolio from South African interests when he was a mayor concerned about apartheid in the 1980s — as if that had any bearing on whether the Israel Anti-Boycott Act runs afoul of the First Amendment.

Then he extolled Israel’s virtues, lauding that nation for its democracy and free press and quickly adding that he has long advocated for a two-state solution that allows Israel and a Palestinian state to coexist.

None of Neal’s blatherings about his foreign policy record have anything to do with whether the boycott act would pass a First Amendment test. And his deferral for clarification to Cardin, who sponsored the bill and obviously likes it, has a hollow ring.

Opponents of the bill can take some comfort. The other Massachusetts House member who co-sponsored it, Rep. Joseph Kennedy III, has vowed to review the legislation in the wake of the ACLU’s objections and declared that he “takes the concerns raised with this particular bill extremely seriously.” In New York, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand withdrew her support this summer after hearing from constituents and constitutional scholars who “interpreted [it] as stifling or chilling free speech.”

So Neal constituents who are concerned about the legislation should keep up the pressure on their congressman. After all, it looks like the very reason he came to Pittsfield for a town hall forum in the first place was because of persistent public criticism that he avoided such settings.

The next time Neal answers questions from the public on this topic he will no doubt try to change the subject to his many accomplishments. After all, that’s what politicians often do in the face of criticism. Next time, perhaps it won’t be so easy.

More by »

8 Comments   Add Comment


    Thank you for this editorial.

  2. Susie Kaufman says:

    It’s good to see the Edge coming back with an editorial concerning Rep. Neal’s sponsorship of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. He is very politically experienced and clearly knows how to slither in and out of subject matter. Six people at the Town Hall, including myself, asked about the Anti-Boycott legislation in relation to Freedom of Speech and no one got a substantive answer. Thank you for recognizing that he mustn’t be allowed to disappear into the shadows on this one. We did succeed in bringing him to Pittsfield and we will succeed in getting him to take this issue seriously if we persist.

  3. Joseph Method says:

    Hear, hear. And if Neal participated in South Africa divestment in the 80s why wouldn’t he see the free speech implications now?

  4. LBaroody says:

    Boycotting Israel should be within every American’s free speech rights. The fact that Neal is against this it is not surprising given that the overwhelming number of members of Congress on any issue having to do with Israel will always side with his israel’s position. They are more interested in pandering to Jews to get their votes and money to stay in power rather than upholding the constitution and doing the right thing


    This bill seems clearly to trample on free speech rights. Boycotts are a historically validated way to put pressure on a country or a company ( remember the civil rights bus boycott? and Caesar Chavez’s grape boycott?).
    I also wish people would not equate disagreement with some of Israel’s policies with being anti-Israel or anti-semitic!

  6. Stephen L. Cohen says:

    An incredible and dangerous piece of legislation. It is antithetical to the ideals and laws of the United States. Hopefully Neal will learn from the comments he heard.

  7. Martin Bresler says:

    There is another dangerous and insidious aspect to the Israel Anti-Boycott bill that has received distressingly little attention. The bill makes no distinction between Israel itself and the occupied West Bank. Thus, if you love Israel but hate the Israeli occupation and really do not want to support the settlers with your dollars you will have to worry about violating this law. It used to be United States foreign policy to distinguish between Israel proper and the occupied territories. Recently, however, the more right wing supporters of Israel have successfully stealthily slipped language into U.S. legislation that conflates the two, for example, making laws applicable to “Israel and territories under the control of Israel.” Actions such as this and the failure to mention the two state solution in press conferences and State Department statements surrounding Jared Kushner’s recent visit to Israel raise the question whether support for a two state solution, a policy that has been in effect for decades under Presidents of both parties, is still the policy of the United States under this President. How sad it is that we have to even ask that question after all this time. Sad that a President who excoriated his predecessor for not being willing to use the phrase “radical Islamic terror” cannot bring himself to use the phrase “two state solution.”

  8. Stephen L. Cohen says:

    Marty is right as always. The stealth abandonment of the two state solution is nefarious and will only be another example of this administration’s abandonment of established foreign and domestic policy.

What's your opinion?

We welcome your comments and appreciate your respect for others. We kindly ask you to keep your comments as civil and focused as possible. If this is your first time leaving a comment on our website we will send you an email confirmation to validate your identity.