“[Speech] concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.”[1] The recently proposed “Israel Anti-Boycott Act” in Congress reflects a legal trend in the United States that threatens activists by suppressing activism. As of November, twenty-six states, including Florida, Texas, and Arizona, already adopted legislation opposing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (“BDS”) movement.[2] The Israel Anti-Boycott Act takes the opposition a step further. The Act’s initial proposal made participation in the international boycott of Israel a felony.[3] The act has since been amended to remove potential jail time as a possible penalty, but still allows for criminal penalties of up to $1 million.[4]

FIU Law third year student and FIU Law Review Member, Amirah Mohammad, authored “Israel Anti-Boycott Act: A Threat to One Movement is a Threat to all Movements” on February 13, 2019,  for the FIU Law Review legal scholarly blog

Frye v. United States,[2] and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc.,[3] established the two primary standards used by federal and state courts in determining the admissibility of expert testimony.  Daubert  is the standard selected by the United States Supreme Court for federal courts, and the overwhelming majority of states.   Historically, Florida Courts have employed the Frye standard.