Note: This article contains graphic language that may be triggering for some audiences.
 
Chicago police say television star Jussie Smollett of Fox’s “Empire” was called “faggot ‘Empire’ nigger” when the 35-year-old was attacked in the city’s downtown late in January.
 
The attack happened weeks after Kevin Hart was forced to give up a gig hosting the 2019 Oscars, after old homophobic tweets and videos from his past stand-up routines resurfaced.
 
This was concurrent with the lambasting of actor Terry Crews by fellow entertainers like Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson and D. L. Hughley for apparently lacking masculinity, after he publicized his alleged sexual assault by a male talent agent.
 
These issues, though separate, are part of a legacy of archetypes of black American masculinity that date back to the abolishment of slavery in the years after the Civil War. That was a time when anti-miscegenation activists warned of the animalistic and beastly sexual nature of black men.
 
These sordid issues are inextricably linked with our country’s painful history on race and how black and brown American men carry the burden of that history.
 
The language purportedly used against Smollett and used by Hart in describing how he would beat his son if he found out that his child was gay is, unfortunately, heard not only in parts of the black American community but in American society at large.
 
Those who employ that language are part of a toxic masculine culture that venerates machismo and violence at the expense of emotion and thought.
 
They are part of a culture that calls young boys, especially young black boys, ‘punks’ for preferring to read books over playing sports.
 
They are part of a culture that seeks to routinely compartmentalize others and diverts the talent of young black and brown men of color into a limited number of occupations and professional fields, neglecting to show them their full potential or their inherent value.
 
These are issues that our society at large must fully acknowledge if we are to become tolerant and respectful of our individual differences.
 
At the ACLU of Florida, we’re fighting for non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people in the Florida Competitive Workplace Act under consideration in the Florida Legislature during the 2019 session. We’re also deeply engaged in ongoing racial justice initiatives that reduce inequities in the criminal justice system and expand access to our society’s opportunities.
 
As part of our commitment to fostering a more inclusive Florida, during this legislative session we are also supporting expansion of access to driver’s licenses by reducing or eliminating penalties linked to fines or court fees, employment licensing reform for returning citizens, and the Prison Reform Bill or Florida’s “First Step” Act. This builds upon our previous voter-enfranchisement campaign in 2018 for Florida’s Amendment 4, and our campaign for marriage equality in 2014.
 
If the police and news reports prove to be accurate and Smollett was indeed attacked by men who poured bleach on him while yelling, “This is MAGA country,” then the perpetrators must face justice. Smollett did not deserve the mistreatment he said he experienced, nor should anyone face mortal threat for living on their own terms, irrespective of sexual orientation or ethnicity.

We need to do some soul-searching about who and what we are to each other, and how we can make our world a more safe, equitable, and inclusive place for everyone.

This week, amid a partial government shutdown, senators tried to sneak through a bill that would encourage states to suppress constitutionally protected political boycotts of Israel.

Ultimately, the Combating BDS Act failed to make it to the Senate floor, largely because enough people exercised their First Amendment right to protest the bill and educate senators that they should get their priorities straight. But it seems that’s not the only education that is in order.

The recent spate of bills that seek to penalize Israel boycotts is a bipartisan problem. Many Senate Democrats blocked the Combating BDS Act this week, rightly arguing that Congress should end the government shutdown rather than making this the first order of business of the new session. But four Senate Democrats voted to pass the bill, and many others, including Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.), have expressed support for other anti-boycott efforts, even when they have come at the expense of our constitutional rights.

This week, however, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) led the charge, and even took to Twitter to spread a number of perplexing and often downright false statements about the First Amendment and the Combating BDS Act.

Here’s what Sen. Rubio got wrong:

Fiction: Local and state governments should be free to end contracts with companies that boycott Israel.

Senator Rubio suggested that not only should states be free to boycott the boycotters, they have the right to boycott them. That’s a troubling proposition, and one specifically prohibited under the Constitution.

First Amendment rights belong to the people, not the government. The government cannot impose its views on people or punish them for expressing views that the government disagrees with. This principle applies to both individuals and companies doing business with the state, and with full force to politically motivated boycotts. Two federal courts recently affirmed this, blocking laws in Arizona and Kansas that penalized individuals and companies for boycotting Israel. And this principle was famously tested in the McCarthy era, when many state laws required government employees to declare they were not members of the Communist Party or other “subversive groups” in order to keep their jobs.

The ACLU successfully challenged many of those laws on constitutional grounds — just as it’s now fighting unconstitutional state laws suppressing lawful boycotts of Israel — and anti-Communist loyalty tests have been mostly relegated to the dustbin of history. The same should happen to the laws requiring people to pledge not to boycott Israel as a condition of doing business with the government.

Fiction: The Combating BDS Act ‘doesn’t punish any political activity.’

That’s what Sen. Rubio tweeted to his followers on January 7. Less than a day later, he tweeted that his bill “allows local & state govt’s to boycott the boycotters.” That, by definition, is state-sponsored punishment for a constitutionally protected activity, and it’s what the First Amendment seeks to protect people from.

Representative Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), told The Washington Post that he prefers another bill, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, because, he argued, it seeks to address constitutional concerns about the Combating BDS Act. That’s also false. Both bills come from the same unconstitutional playbook and make a mockery of the First Amendment. In fact, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act takes it to another level, imposing criminal penalties of up to $1 million on individuals or companies boycotting Israel or any foreign country if the boycott were called for by international governmental organizations like the United Nations. Senators Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) similarly expressed concerns that the bill violated the First Amendment.

Fiction: Opposing anti-BDS laws is de facto support of BDS.

Not true. The ACLU doesn’t take a position on boycotts of Israel, but we have long defended the right to boycott, which is a proud part of America’s constitutional tradition and protected by the First Amendment. And we’re not the only ones. A number of members of Congress — many of whom who don’t take a position on the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement or have even expressed opposition to it — have First Amendment concerns with the bill.

Whatever your views on BDS, we all should be able to agree that the government has no business telling us which causes we can or cannot support.

Marco Rubio and his colleagues may not agree with the BDS movement, and they have a First Amendment right to express that. But public officials cannot use the power of public office to punish views they don’t agree with. That’s the kind of authoritarian power our Constitution is meant to protect against.

Kate Ruane, Senior Legislative Counsel, ACLU & Abdullah Hasan, Communications Strategist, ACLU