6 thoughts on “Olympia Food Coop Files Anti-SLAPP Motion Seeking Dismissal of Stand With Us BDS Lawsuit – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Israel is perhaps so accustomed to “infringing on rights” that its long arm reaches all the way to Olympia in an attempt to silence free speech for Americans! Next, the US Congress will pass a law that American retailers must carry Israeli products. I’d bet that some brown-nosing congressman is already considering such legislation. Americans should be outraged with this foreign tinkering and dickering with American freedoms.

  2. Thanks so much for presenting this to us. Reading the legal materials suggests to me an easy “win” for the co-op board if the court follow the law asserted in the brief.

    The $10,000 fine payable to each defendant (should the defendants prevail on the SLAPP motion) should make the anti-BDS folks think twice about such suits, at least in Washington state.

  3. The common understanding of a SLAPP lawsuit is one to silence *speech*. Are the anti-BDS people suing the cooperative’s officers for *advocating* BDS (ie SLAPP), or for actually carrying it out (a business dispute)?

    If the latter, it may be a frivolous lawsuit (depending on the bylaws of the cooperative, and Washington State law on cooperative governance), but not a SLAPP.

    –Hugo S. Cunningham

      1. As I read this article
        and this one
        the suit is not against speaking out in favor of a boycott, but rather for actually carrying out the boycott.
        The second article claims that the coop’s bylaws require “consensus” for controversial political acts, rather than a 51% majority vote. Even if said claims are false, they represent a business dispute rather than an attack on *speech*.
        Or would you protect every act as “symbolic speech,” including a brick through the window?

        Presumably, however, there is a mechanism to change the coop’s bylaws so that decisions can be made by simple majority vote. It might be necessary to buy out minority voters for a value-based rather than hold-up-for-ransom-based price.

        1. You’re quoting Shurat HaDin as a legal authority?? Wonder of wonders! That is about as bogus a source as anyone could offer & betrays yr own right wing political commitments.

          You’re wrong. The suit claims that the coop board violated proper procedures in approving the boycott. The suit has nothing on the surface to do with actually carrrying out the boycott, though that is its underlying purpose.

          The plaintiffs are presenting their claim as one solely regarding the rules by which the coop is run. But that’s not the case at all & you’re simply cheerleading the plaintiffs, which is pathetic. The coop has every right to decide to institute a boycott and followed its own rules in doing so. Either the anti SLAPP will end the suit or a trial will do so & this laughingstock of a lawsuit will be thrown out of court & yr arguments along with ’em.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link