"BDS, Hypocrisy, and Our Barren Public Sphere" is a bizarre rambling rant of a National Review article. It seems downright endless. It seeks common cause with the ACLU and attacks Mike Cernovich.
It contains this sentence, "allowing it to be overshadowed by the spectral world of the Israeli–Palestinian dispute." And this sentence, "This is a convenient way to avoid being trapped in the contradictions and convulsions of the Trump administration, but it’s a terrible way to run a public sphere in a democratic society."
And this sentence, "Sometimes in the course of our political life, someone proposes something so mind-bogglingly stupid that it’s hard to know exactly what to say about it. Senate Bill 720 is one of those things."
The mind-bogglingly stupid thing is the National Review article which takes the ACLU's description of Senate Bill 720 at face value as a fact. That's like taking the SPLC's hate group rankings as a fact.
"The American Civil Liberties Union opposes it. “This bill would impose civil and criminal punishment on individuals solely because of their political beliefs about Israel and its polices,” the organization writes in a letter to senators. The thrust of its criticism is simple. Many companies and individuals conduct no transactions with Israel, for lack of a need to; the bill would make illegal such an action only if it bears a political motivation. The bill therefore penalizes political beliefs and so is both unconstitutional and unconscionable."
Except, well, it doesn't.
Here's the actual bill.
To amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to include in the prohibitions on boycotts against allies of the United States boycotts fostered by international governmental organizations against Israel and to direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States to oppose boycotts against Israel, and for other purposes.
This is what happens when you get your facts from the ACLU.
Yes, that's it. Senate Bill 720 extends an existing law opposing anti-Israel boycotts to the UN.
There's a lesson here. The National Review article has assorted critiques of conservative media. One that it doesn't offer, but is quite applicable to it, is the danger of copying material from primary sources without doing a proper background check as to whether it's true or not. That is especially true when relying on radical left-wing groups like the ACLU for your material.