Not to sound like a smart-aleck, Amy, but the concept of government "forcing" their agendas onto the general public has been going on for years (and will continue to do so as well).

For example, here is New York's Governor Cuomo earlier this year sending out letters to all New York State-chartered banks telling them that they need to stop doing business with the NRA and gun makers:

https://www.pressrepublican.com/news/local_news/gov-to-banks-sever-ties-with-gun-makers/article_a2a9f16c-5e3a-5739-a86c-b88f16e247c2.html

In your post, you mention that the ACLU said "This misguided law seeks to undermine a form of protected expression that has been a part of our nation's constitutional tradition since the founding." Notice, however, that the ACLU has been strangely silent regarding Governor Cuomo in this matter.

Your post, as well as Governor Cuomo's doings, is part of the concept known as "selective outrage". This is where "outrage" is directed towards someone based on not whether their actions is valid, but whether against whom the actions are directed.

I can give you dozens of previous examples, both liberal and conservative, where these kinds of government actions have taken place. For you to say that this type of government behavior started in Texas in the past year is myopic at best.

Free speech lets the idiots self-identify.
Also, Rick-above-is right.

I musta missed where she said it started in Texas this year

Care to quote that section?

I can see a regulation preventing public employees advocating political causes during work time, especially teachers, but not telling them what they can and cant do in their private lives

The law is fully constitutional. When you are acting as an employee of the state then you have to follow rules your employer sets down. What you do on your own time is your business but what you do on company time is the company's business.

Or to look at it a different way since this is a contractor, the state can chose who to purchase from and who not to. They don't wish to purchase products from people boycotting Israel. If you want to boycott then by all means do so. But the state of Texas is not required to do business with you at that time.

As Rick points out above, the ACLU isn't acting in a non-political fashion. They want people to boycott Israel so they are bringing lawsuits (including ones like this that are baseless) to advance that agenda. The rest is salesmanship. The actions by Cuomo and Holder against banks were far more significant and quite unconstitutional. After all you can't be a bank without following government banking regulations. But you didn't hear a peep out of the ACLU over that.

The school district will not only lose someone with an advanced degree....

No real loss, there. School districts are full of people with Masters degrees, usually in Education. Every other school principal, it seems, has a doctorate in Education (EdD). Union rules require higher pay for higher degree levels, and with summers off, the pursuit of an advanced degree readily accomplished in a few years. And the Education curriculum is not generally noted as a rigorous one.

I'm not sure that this actually violates a 1st Amendment right.

The state of Texas through its offices, agencies and institutions pursues a range of commercial, cultural and academic engagements with Israel along with Israeli companies and individuals.

If a contractor is unwilling to participate in those engagements a/o seeks to obstruct them, they are unable to fulfill their obligations to the state, by saying - I'll satisfy the requirements of this contract unless it involved dealing with Israeli Jews. It's the same reason they wouldn't contract someone who avowedly refuses to work with Mexicans.

Also it's dishonest to describe the language in that code as an 'oath'. It's simply an attestation agreeing not to boycott Isreali entities during the term of the contract.

This is no more onerous than making vendors - remember, she's a contractor who's won a bid to provide services and not an employee - say that they'll abide by other anti-discrimination laws.

I'm pretty sure she's allowed to do or say whatever she likes on her own time. It's that her business is not so free.

Alternative: give up the fat government contract, and go and compete in the real world. Your business will be permitted to say and do whatever you want it to say or do.

To coin a phrase, bake the damn caked.

Making government officials swear an oath supporting another country is messed up.

No oaths sworn, no government officials involved - learn to read Nicole.

Actually, it appears that the law require that she not boycott Israel ***in her business incarnation***. Thus, if she wants to boycott Israel oranges, she may do so without violating the attestation. However, if an Israeli citizen or business wanted to obtain from her the same services that she is providing to the state government, then she could not refuse to deal with them and still keep her government contract.

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/12/18/everyone-is-misreporting-the-texas-bds-l#comment

Wrote Ben:

The actions by Cuomo and Holder against banks were far more significant and quite unconstitutional. After all you can't be a bank without following government banking regulations. But you didn't hear a peep out of the ACLU over that.

Of course it did. I remember it.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/403795-aclu-backs-nra-in-lawsuit-against-gov-cuomo

"The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) threw its weight behind the National Rifle Association (NRA), filing an amicus brief on the gun rights group’s behalf in its lawsuit against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D). The ACLU's action comes after the NRA filed a lawsuit earlier this year against Cuomo and New York’s financial regulation agency, alleging a “blacklisting campaign” aimed at getting banks to cut ties with the gun group."

What about Holder and his use of banking regulations against various groups Kevin?

What about it?

You said the ACLU hadn't made "a peep" about Holder and Cuomo; all I did was remember it differently and bring the receipts.

You got the Cuomo, so I asked where is the Holder. Not complicated.

"I'm not sure that this actually violates a 1st Amendment right."

The state of California has numerous requirements for contractors and others who receive state funds, which prohibits them from receiving funding if they associate with entities that advocate policies that the state government disapproves of. A couple of years ago, there was a class of school kids who were going to go to Space Camp in Alabama. The state stepped in and prohibited the school from funding or supporting the trip, since Alabama laws fail to pass various California political-correctness tests. The kids had to raise the money for the trip themselves.

And yeah, I get Amy's point, but that ship has sailed.

""The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) threw its weight behind the National Rifle Association (NRA), filing an amicus brief on the gun rights group’s behalf in its lawsuit against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo."

The ACLU is funny that way. The national organization is pretty much all in for leftism. However, some of the local chapters are still doing good work and maintaining their position of non-partisan civil liberties advocacy. So far, the national organization doesn't appear to be trying to stop them. I'm not sure how ACLU funding works internally, so we'll see how long this continues, or if the national organization will be able to de-fund chapters who don't fall in line.