Intolerable speech and the anti-BDS law

Comment published on New York Times blog in response to opinion essay by Marco Rubio, “The truth about BDS and the lies about my bill,” February 5, 2019:

Rubio's position here amounts to claiming that BDS has an objective that renders the organization and its cause unworthy of toleration. (He says they seek the end of the Jewish state and not merely its withdrawal from the Occupation of the West Bank).  

He then claims that the proposed law does not target speech, but only actions. But it targets actions because of the positions they are undertaken to support. That is, it targets actions for reasons of speech.  

For this reason, such a law should be considered unconstitutional.

The thinking behind the bill is not of course that the Jews are an oppressed people who deserve the support of powerful nations like ours to help them survive. Though that is said, and is based on circumstances that historically are real enough. The reasons have to do with the importance of Israel in America's foreign policy (not ours to it). Indeed, it American politicians cared about the need to lend a hand to oppressed people, they would extend this to many other groups, including the Palestinians.  

That American "national interests," for this is what is at stake, will be used by our government to restrict the freedom of political speech or action of those who express a contrary point of view is--nothing short of chilling.