|
Yes, I'm aware that economic interference is by no means a new thing. But historically such claims have failed in circumstances like this.
I'll defer to your expertise, though. I wonder to what extent is matters if the interfering party gains no economic benefit? Such as in the many groups that threatened boycotts (and had meetings with officials) against companies operating or dealing with South Africa during Apartheid and were successful in reaching such specific agreements.
You are correct that I was loose with my terminology in saying criminalized. So change it to regulated (though I would argue that any time the government says you can be punished for something, even if it is only through financial penalty in civil court it has essentially been criminalized).
|