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

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kidicious


When people say this it always raises a red flag with me.

Raise all the red flags you want... when it comes to companies, money is usually the driving force. And I guess when it comes to old singers, money is it for them too.

She decided to bring politics into a non political event. She didn't care if people wanted it or not... It wasn't a discussion between her and her fans... it was a lecture... a one way thing. Their actions made her pay attention... while she won't change her position, at least her fans in the concert got a chance to let her know what they think... a two way discussion. She is welcome to continue bringing polilics into her concerts, and she shouldn't be surprised if some fans act the same way. She feels that money is so important, she apologized to her fans... Maybe next time, she will save her political speechs for political rallies

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ming
Raise all the red flags you want... when it comes to companies, money is usually the driving force. And I guess when it comes to old singers, money is it for them too.

Money is more often than not the root of politics. Politics is a very significant factor when it comes to making money. Companies want a govt that is friendly to them. That's how they make money.

Originally posted by Ming
She decided to bring politics into a non political event. She didn't care if people wanted it or not... It wasn't a discussion between her and her fans... it was a lecture... a one way thing. Their actions made her pay attention... while she won't change her position, at least her fans in the concert got a chance to let her know what they think... a two way discussion. She is welcome to continue bringing polilics into her concerts, and she shouldn't be surprised if some fans act the same way. She feels that money is so important, she apologized to her fans... Maybe next time, she will save her political speechs for political rallies

Ah. Politics isn't restricted to authorized areas, it's only discouraged for political (and economic) reasons.

[Kuciwalker]

Money is more often than not the root of politics. Politics is a very significant factor when it comes to making money. Companies want a govt that is friendly to them. That's how they make money.

You think the owner fired her because he thought it would raise Bush's chances of reelection = raise the chances of a more friendly admin?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You think the owner fired her because he thought it would raise Bush's chances of reelection = raise the chances of a more friendly admin?

I think she possed a threat to his political and economic interest, and he didn't want to help her in anyway. That, skywalker, is a rational decision.

[Kuciwalker]

[Agathon]

Yes... continue to ignore that you truely don't believe in real discussions... just insulting people that don't agree with you.

Whatever...

It's not suppressing them... that's the whole flaw in your supposed argument. The people who are doing "whatever" it is that is being boycotted can continue to do what ever it was they are doing.

They are suppressing it simply because their actions or threatened actions influence the person speaking. The idea of free speech is that you can express your political beliefs without fear of reprisal. People will not feel free to express their political beliefs if they are afraid of reprisals.

We have a way of sorting out our political differences. It's called the ballot. A feature of the open society is that people should feel free to express their political views without fear of reprisals in order to persuade their fellow citizens at the ballot.

If they stop because of the boycot... that's THEIR choice. But they can continue to do just what they want and ignore the boycott...

If your boss can fire you because of your politics, then that places a massive constraint on free speech for the majority of ordinary Joes. it means that only those who can afford the risk will express their political opinions, and that's not everyone.

BOTH sides get their point of view across... instead of the onsided tactics you take to just ignore and insult those that disagree with you.

Whatever... No amount of bluster or accusations will hide the fact that you are seriously out of your depth in this discussion (just like last time in the copyright discussion, in which you were thoroughly owned).

If I am going to lose half my income by stating my political opinion, then that's going to make me feel reticent about expressing my political opinions. In a democratic society no one should be put in that situation.

Typical of you... If you can't see that boycottings is making a statement identical to saying it... you don't have a clue

It is not identical to speech (because it isn't speaking or conveying semantic content) and it is not the only option open. In the open society you are free to petition, protest and publish. These things are better than boycotts in that they are attempts to persuade rather than coerce.

I'm not the clueless one. You just want a society where you can coerce people into shutting up by threatening their livelihoods.

Again... you ignore reality. And your gun argument is a true red herring... You can voice your opinion by NOT buying a product.

You aren't voicing an opinion by not buying a product, you are just not buying a product. If all you do is not buy the product, how is the manufacturer supposed to know your reasons for not buying it? Of course you could voice your opinion by writing or speaking to them or protesting, but that is different from merely not buying their stuff.

Not only is it a legal... it's a smart way to get your opinion across. People have to listen to you and discuss the issues if they want to change your mind on the boycott... promoting a true discussion of the issues.

The key statement that undermines your whole position is that, as you say, "people have to listen to you". That is why it is coercive.

What you want is for consumers to be able to compel people they disagree with to keep their traps shut. A society based on this premise is not one in which heretical ideas can easily flourish and is not a society that resolves its differences through open discussion and the ballot.

The casino did what was within their legal rights when somebody they were paying was pissing off paying customers... I think Linda got the message, so it was pretty effective. Yes, their are many ways to do things... and boycotts is one of them... and an effective one at that...

I agree that they were within their rights to dismiss her, I merely think that this shows how some people can't handle free speech when it doesn't go their own way.

Your argument fails because it doesn't have a dampening effect on free expression... it's just another form of it. Just one of the MANY ways people can have their opinions heard.

Of course it does. It simply stands to reason that if there are serious consequences with expressing your beliefs, people will be less likely to do it. The difference between a vindictive society which boycotts dissenters and a totalitarian society which imprisons them is one of degree, not of kind. Both reject the idea that people should be free to express themselves politically without fear of reprisals from others.

The society in which people resolve these issues at the ballot is a more open society than one in which people must live in fear of vindictive boycotts. It's about the power of each individual to express his or her political beliefs and for others to be free to accept or reject them at the ballot, not about the power of individuals to silence others with threats and boycotts.

Another one of you red herrings...
Not buying a product is sending a messsage... if you can't hear it, that's your fault

Nobody can. There are millions of products I don't buy. How are the companies supposed to know I am boycotting them unless I tell them? In that case I may as well just hold a protest.

But when your reason is incorrect and not supported by any facts... where does the stupidity really belong

It's supported by arguments and an understanding of how they work, which is more than I can say for your crude attempts at refutation.

And that's why I support this type of boycott. You are the one that's mistaken that it makes people less likely to engage in it. It's a way to bring people to the "table" to have the discussions.

Protests and other forms of dissent do this just as well. The difference is that they are non-coercive. The problem with your version is that it can just as easily be used to silence people.

You never answer mine... and your question is irrelevent to the discussion. I've already stated that boycots encourge discussion, and you say it doesn't.

And I have a reason, you don't.

The argument is simple - when there is the prospect of harm coming to one through expressing one's political beliefs, all other things being equal one is less likely to do so.

Deny this if you want, it will merely expose the absurdity of your position.

If I speak out against my company, or it's beliefs, I excpect to get fired.

Great, so you endorse the idea that your boss should be able to prevent you from attending political rallies of the party of your choice. Some democracy.

Maybe you live in some fantasy world where you never have to face the consequences of your actions... but that's all it is... a fantasy world.

No. It's called every country I have ever lived in. The expectation is that we resolve our differences at the ballot, not by threatening each other with boycotts. It works quite well. When I am at work I am a representative of my company or organization. When I'm not at work I can campaign for whom the hell I want. It's not my employer's business and none of my past employers would have thought it was. In fact they would be horrified at the suggestion.

People have EVERY RIGHT to stop supporting some person, company, or product because they don't believe in something they are doing or saying. And you want to limit that because in your opinion it stops discussion.

If you've actually read what I've been saying, I'm not arguing that people should lose all these rights. I'm merely saying that a society where people do not try to silence others with threats is not as free a society as that where dialogue is free from fear.

You're wrong... it OPENS Discussion by bringing both sides to the table. If you are the little guy, you need something to make those big rich people listen... and you can't deny that boycotts are effective.

So boycotting Michael Moore's film so that people in many areas couldn't see it, opened discussion. How interesting.

What your little scheme does is give some people power over the political speech of others. It can conceivably be used to initiate dicussion, but as the Moore and Ronstadt cases show, it can just as easily be used to suppress it.

In a culture where people don't feel the need to coerce or threaten each other over their political beliefs, this does not happen. No society is perfect, but the States is pretty bad in this respect.

[Jaguar]

Like anyone's gonna read that?

[JohnT]

Congratulations, Agathon, it's been years since Ming has Berzerked a post before. Good job!

[JohnT]

I would like to note that one of the most effective uses of boycotts as a measure of free speech occurred in Montgomery, AL as a result of the boycott of the segregated bus system by the African-American community, a boycott that is considered today the start of the entire civil rights movement.

While the case in question (Linda Ronstadt) is silly, the argument that boycotts are not expressions of free speech are even sillier, and ignores the fact that for the disenfranchised, it is likely to be the only means of effectively expressing their grievances allowed.

[GePap]

Its wonderful seeing Agathon and Ming talking right past each other and yet using the time to parcel post...

The Two sides as I understand them:

Ming: Consumer choice is part of freedom of speech, and people have every right to excercise their politics within their consumer choices.

Agathon: Creating economic disinsentives for individuals who openly voice opinions other than yours undermines overall freedom of opinion.

Can I get a confirmation from each side this is correct?

[Agathon]

Pretty much, although I am not advocating changing the law (so I'm not advocating restrictions on consumer choice), just saying that it would be a better world if people didn't immediately resort to boycotts. Politics is best, except in extreme cases, better left to the ballot.

And the bus case is slightly different. The bus system itself was what they were objecting to - they also had trouble voting which makes it a special case. When folk boycott the Dixie Chicks, it isn't because their music is bad, it's because they want to send a message that this is what happens to people who disagree with us.

Similarly, your boss is justified in firing you when there is a conflict of interest. You can't go protesting the dam your company is building. But this has to stop somewhere. It may be in your company's interests that the Republicans win the election, but your boss should never have the right to fire you because you campaign for the Democrats (or vice versa). So the conflict of interest has to be pretty specific.

I don't see how this is much different from the employment protections afforded people with respect to race and religion (although some people on this board don't like those).

[Agathon]

the argument that boycotts are not expressions of free speech are even sillier

No it's not. They are expressions of a completely different right, the right to trade or withhold trade.

and ignores the fact that for the disenfranchised, it is likely to be the only means of effectively expressing their grievances allowed.

No it isn't. They can protest, petition, and publish (the last being even easier these days). Coercion should be the last resort and only in extreme cases.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Agathon
When folk boycott the Dixie Chicks, it isn't because their music is bad, it's because they want to send a message that this is what happens to people who disagree with us.

Not exactly. Do you think that if a newspaper wrote an article saying that Rondstadt intends to vote for Kerry, people would boycott her? The reason they're boycotting her is not simply because she disagrees with them, but also because they paid to hear her sing and got obnoxious politicizing instead.

[Agathon]

Sure, but the obvious thing to do would be to hiss or stay silent. The latter is what I do in these situations.

Jeez... you go to a U2 or REM concert and you'll probably get a lecture or two. Hardly worth spitting the dummy over.

In any case, the people who paid to see the Dixie Chicks when Natalie Maines made those comments actually cheered. It was people who didn't pay and weren't there who got all huffy.

[Jaguar]

Your third point is very valid. I think that was a bit of an exception, given that they come from the only conservative-leaning music genre, the concert was abroad, and it was a very tense time. However, that was indeed a colossal overreaction.