Linda Rondstadt fired for supporting Michael Moore! What about freedom of Speech?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

So you've been using pressure inconsistently, then.

OK... confused:

Whatever.

[Kuciwalker]

Maybe it was Aggie, but no one has been using pressure to mean solely "physical force".

[Chemical Ollie]

Get a brain, morans!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Perhaps it is, but why is that against free speech? Free speech statements can also be silly, but so what?

Yes, people can be stupid. I don;t enshrine or support their stupidity thought.

In terms of boycots? Not really.

The arguement here is not the results of the boycott financially, but the reasons for the boycott.

What about the force of your argument? What if your argument is so overwhelming that the other is pressured to change his stance? When, say, a reporter comes in to a Presidential Press Conference with pages and pages of quotes and is trying to get the President (or his spokesman) to admit something in those quotes which he denies, I consider that putting pressure on the President. In fact many people believe that's putting pressure on someone, overwhelming them with facts to change their story.

"The force of my argument"? IF ONLY my arguments had the type of force I am speaking about, it would be great! Pressure implies that one acts NOT due to free choice, BUT becuase of the wish to end some negative stimuli. It is the difference between asking someone: did you do it? or hitting someone while you are asking them "did you do it!".

We established already you are free to be stupid- if you say the world is flat, then I show you a picture of the earth in space, you know what, you are still free to say "whatever, I trust my eyes, its flat" and move on, and wallow in your stupidity. If I start beating the person with a baseball bat while asking them to recent, THAT is pressure.

In the example you mentioned: the spoekeman is engaged in a bit of interactive political theater- meaning he is there to take questions. If what you describe happens, then you know what, the spokesman is free to say "no comment", or to comment. The president is free to admit a mistake, or not to admit. The fallout is the opinion of others, which people are free to make on their own given the information they have, anyways.

Precisely. You cannot undermine a right by simply exercising it. You cannot undermine the right to vote by voting. In order to undermine the right to vote, you have to prevent others from voting, and that requires other actions apart from voting yourself.

I leave it to others to judge the correctness of each side presented. Cause it is obvious I won;t get throught to you on this point.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Maybe it was Aggie, but no one has been using pressure to mean solely "physical force".

Financial punishment counts as force- ergo fines and tickets and so forth levied by the state as punishment.

I didn't know someone telling you you are wrong counts as a form of punishment.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Financial punishment counts as force- ergo fines and tickets and so forth levied by the state as punishment.

Fines are backed up by physical force - you are still "forced".

I didn't know someone telling you you are wrong counts as a form of punishment.

That was my point, that it doesn't.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Moreover the point wrt financial is that in the instances GePap provided these are punishments. The withholdingof a reward i.e. boycott is not necessarily a punishment as the reward is not guaranteed.

[Lefty Scaevola]

You are missing Ge Pap's real purpose.
'Artist" tend to be much more leftist, therefore he approves them using their power and influence, including art, for political purposes.
The consumers are too conservative for him, therfore he disapprove of them using their power and influence, such as buying power for political purposes. He is just like the boycotters, trying to reduce the power of his political enemies.
He belives tools used more by his allies are good, and those used more by his ememies are bad, thus hes has to ridiculously twist himself to distinguish be 'good' politically motivated boycott and 'bad' politically motivated boycotts.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Fines are backed up by physical force - you are still "forced".

Force will be used if the person fined refuses to accept their punishment. If they accept to submit to their due punishment, no force is used. The issue is the fact that we assume making someone pay money out is a possible punishment, as opposed to demanding they be denied freedoms by encarceration, or exile.

[Kuciwalker]

Still, not buying someone's product is not an application of force.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
You are missing Ge Pap's real purpose.
'Artist" tend to be much more leftist, therefore he approves them using their power and influence, including art, for political purposes.
The consumers are too conservative for him, therfore he disapprove of them using their power and influence, such as buying power for political purposes. He is just like the boycotters, trying to reduce the power of his political enemies.

I wonder who this Ge Pap is? Maybe I should sue him for taking a name so similar to mine?

The argument here is whether boycotting people for expressing their political views is simply another example of freedom of speech. If you aren't ready to debate that, then don't waste your time.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Still, not buying someone's product is not an application of force.

depends on the form of the boycott. If each individual simply decides by themselves not to buy, fine. If a group of individuals get together for the purpose of action, specially carrying out a campaign to undermine financial underwriting for someone, then it is a form of pressure: which is why sucha group would be formed in the first place.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Selleck wasn't attacked for being pro-Bush, he was attacked for being pro-NRA and acting as a spokesman for them in ad campaigns.

Sava said pro-Bush celebrities attacked for their views. Selleck was attacked for his views.

The implication being that they were attacked for being pro-Bush. After all, it's pretty irrelevant if they were attacked for something not related to being pro-Bush, isn't it?

[Agathon]

Maybe it was Aggie, but no one has been using pressure to mean solely "physical force".

Don't misattribute comments to me in order to hide your own incompetence.

[Ming]

Originally posted by debeest
But refusing to let her go back to her room to get her own stuff? Come on, Ming. You know perfectly well that wasn't part of the business decision; it was a political punishment that wouldn't have happened to any right-winger there. It was right-wing PC.

And you know this how? Can you read their minds? You are just assuming... and guessing... and trying to make something out of it that might not be there. It very well could have happened to a right-winger if they had pissed off PAYING CUSTOMERS. The Casino management was PISSED... People come to Vegas to have fun... and the Casino wants them happy and spending money. I think that treatment would have been given to ANYBODY that pissed off paying customers... because that's whats Vegas is all about.

But if you want to make up stuff so you can support your political agenda, feel free... but you obviously don't understand Las Vegas and Casinos. There are NO FACTS to support your assumptions.