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

[Jaguar]

Ming is clearly owning Agathon.

[Kuciwalker]

Not too difficult.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't concede anything of the sort- you're simply parroting his opinion, not a given fact. I think we might allow that his opinion of his future employment opportunities might be coloured by his predicament, and any kind of sympathy he's trying to drum up.

Someone who slept with their students wouldn't even get such a blackmark on their record.

Ergo, it stands to reason, that 'conduct unbecoming a teacher' is a very great deterrent to future employment.

He wasn't fired for publishing a letter- you stated, as fact, earlier in another thread that he was.

He was suspended for a month plus the black mark on his record rather than fired. I admit that, which is why I edited the first post in the thread to clarify.

Secondly, he was suspended for publishing a letter to the newspaper. Do you admit that Molly?

Not all Christians think like you, and not all Christian teachers think or act like him- praise be to god.

I think it's your loss Molly. He has a good teaching record. No complaints from his students. I think you would have liked such an earnest teacher who didn't preach in his classes.

I admit, not all Christians think the way I do. Thank goodness they don't!

Would he have been criticized for holocaust denying or anti-semitic remarks, yes or no?

In the paper? Yes. Would he be suspended for making such remarks in a letter to the editor? No.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Not too difficult.

Again, as always, Kuciwalker speaks the truth.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Someone who slept with their students wouldn't even get such a blackmark on their record.

Ergo, it stands to reason, that 'conduct unbecoming a teacher' is a very great deterrent to future employment.


Secondly, he was suspended for publishing a letter to the newspaper. Do you admit that Molly?

You mean like the woman teacher currently on trial in the United States? And others like her?


'12 Feb 1999

Mark Shaffer / The Arizona Republic

Parker teachers accused in sex cases
Female teachers accused of having sex with students

PARKER -- It had been the worst-kept secret in Parker High School.

Ms. Jennifer A., was indicted on three counts of sexual conduct with a minor student two weeks ago.

But an even bigger bomb was on the horizon involving another female teacher in the Parker Unified School District. Ms. Tracey N., 23, a librarian at Le Pera School south of town, was indicted last week on two counts of sexual abuse for reportedly molesting a 13-year-old girl who worked in the library at the school.

Both women were booked and released on their own recognizance, which got tongues wagging again saying that male teachers wouldn't have been treated in such a lenient manner.

It's a cutting-edge issue that has been on the front burners of court cases around the nation which challenge stereotypes of women as victims not perpetrators.

Residents of Parker and La Paz County have certainly had a double standard in the past.

In the late 1980s, a Parker middle-school teacher, 40-year-old Ms. Suzanne Y., had a sexual affair with a 14-year-old boy. She was sentenced to three years' probation.

The judge in the case, Stephen Conn of Mohave County Superior Court, said that "a crime perpetrated by a woman on a male child is not the same as a crime perpetrated by a male on a female child."

In 1997, Ms. Catherine M., a 35-year-old former teacher at Deer Valley High School, got six months for sex with a minor, a former student, at a party in the desert.

This week, Ms. Marian L., 39, former director of a Cave Creek charter school, was given a year in jail and lifetime probation for two counts of attempted sexual contact with two 14-year-old boys. '

In trying to get Kempling into Foxe's Book of Martyrs you're overegging the pudding somewhat.

Sleeping with a pupil- publishing a letter. Why of course, they're exactly the same, aren't they!


As for his suspension being related to his publishing a letter- I think I was the one who brought that up.

So yes, I would agree, wouldn't I?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ming
Typical... claim you have won, toss a few insults, and think you have won. From my perspective, you are the one that have lost this one

+

I thought you both agreed that you were just side stepping each other.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

A boycot is a great way for the small guys to have the big guys listen to their opinion. That is how discussions can happen. If one side has the power or media attention, and you don't, you have to resort to proven methods to be heard. Boycotts are just another form.

The problems are: (a) it's an even better method for the big guys to use to shut the small guys up.

and: (b) it's unnecessary for getting your point of view heard. Other traditional forms of dissent work just as well, and don't suffer from the defect of being coercive.

So are you really saying people shouldn't have a choice on how to spend their money... Because that's all a boycott on political issues is, a choice on how to spend your money. You say boycots limit the right for free speech, but if they are allowed to the people, you are limiting there rights as well.

I wish you would bother actually reading my posts. I advocated no law change and no law restricting how people spend their money. The fact that you have harped on about this for about a page is testament to the fact that you've missed the point I have been making all along - that it is a cultural problem and cannot be solved by making new laws. People in other countries do not behave this way, and there is no ironclad law of nature that requires Americans to do so.

A red herring... this has nothing to do with voting... that right remains no matter which side of this you are on.

That's not the point. The question is whether we use the non-coercive nature of free discussion and the ballot to solve our differences, or we resort to coercing people into silence. You obviously prefer the latter.

People have the right and power to use economics as well to persuade people. There is a balance of rights here... Your argument is one sided, and doesn't take the other into consideration. I don't want to restrict anybodys right to voice their political opinion in a legal fashion.

But by advocating boycotts of the type the Dixie Chicks suffered that is exactly what you are doing. A society that operates after your fashion will engender fear among those who wish to dissent, since their economic well being will be at stake. You have not provided one iota of argument against this conclusion.

The owners of business have that right. If you were employed by the government, that would be a different story.

Great. I suppose they have the right to tell you how to vote as well. At least I can see nothing in your version that would prevent them from requiring that employees vote for the company line and bring back proof. What a lovely way to undermine democracy in favour of corporate totalitarianism...

I've news for you, employers do not have the right to interfere in their employees private lives, anyone that argues differently is on the road to fascism. If they can't fire them because of race or religion, I see no impediment to prohibiting firing people because of their personal politics.

But if you want to give employers the right to fire black people, why not just go the whole hog and let white people own them again.

Typical... claim you have won, toss a few insults, and think you have won. From my perspective, you are the one that have lost this one

It's easy to see for anyone with any logical acumen that you have provided nothing against my claim at all. Instead you have accused me of wishing to deprive people of legal rights that I have explicitly said I wanted to retain. Nowhere have I said that people should be legally prevented from consumer boycotts, I just called for a change to a healthier attitude regarding political speech.

You are out of your depth here, that much is evident.

It's your choice on whether you take a job or not... If the money is that important to you, maybe you should take a job where they believe like you do.

Of course in a dream world people can choose whatever job they wish, but in the real world people are often compelled by the threat of homelessness to take what they can get. Of course the political right spends forever praising the kind of freedom which means the choice between a sweatshop or living under a bridge.

In the example for this thread, a tired old singer who tried to make a simple concert into a political statement, and incited a riot that didn't make her employers very happy... she lost no income, and was escorted off the property. She won't be hired by that casino again... but it's her fault.

wrong. The prospective owners of the casino have said they will make a point of hiring her back.

Publishing, protests, and petitions can all be forms or coercian as well...

How so? I don't see how protesting peacefully in front of a McDonalds coerces anyone. The owners are free to listen if they wish, as are passers by and customers. And handing in 10,000 signatures expressing agreement with an opinion is just that, it makes no threat against anyone.

Just like a boycott can be just a chance to be heard... Boycotts are just one method.

And as I have already argued in previous posts, one that is particularly open to the abuses of democracy and free speech I mentioned.

A newspaper printing an op ed piece can be far worse in terms of coercian...

How so? It's the newspaper editor's opinion. Unless the editor threatens people I fail to see how it could count as coercive.

You seem to want a society where peoples rights are ristricted.

Well, I'll point out again that I never asked for that (read the thread again). But even if I did, it would only be restricting the right of people to coerce others into silence.

And they will probably just ignore your letter... it's harder for them to ignore a boycott. If you don't want to call it voicing an opinion... whatever... it's obvious to everybody else

No. The letters of complaint I've sent have all been taken quite seriously. And if it is "obvious" to everyone else, then more fools them.

But they can ignore you... People at the concert didn't have any choice, and had to listen to the message... but that doesn't make it coercive

No they didn't. They could simply have ignored it and talked to their friends. Linda Ronstadt was not saying to them, "listen to me, or I'll have you strip searched by the bouncers."

All I want is right of the consumer to spend his hard earned dollars on whatever products he wants. You seem to be the one that wants to force them to buy products from companies they don't agree with...

You show me where I said that. I'll point out to you again that I called for a change of attitude, not a change in legislation. I've been saying as much the whole thread. Perhaps when you realize this, you will see how foolish your responses appear.

I've said repeatedly that it would be better w/regard to free speech if people were more tolerant and didn't attempt to use boycotts or power advantages to coerce dissenters into silence.

I think it shows they were pissed about have a riot and angry customers, and would probably lose money in the deal... it had nothing to do with "how some people can't free speech"

Again, if you bothered reading back, I said I didn't blame the company, but the childish people who had to make a scene because somebody said something they didn't like. Unfortunately, living in an open society means that everyone often hears things we don't like and we just have to suck it up instead of making a pointless fuss or trying to ruin someone's career because we disagree with them.

You call somebody a name to their face, expect that they might respond... boycotts are legitimate way to get your message across. and trying to call equate boycotts with a totalitarian society is just plain silly.

Really? I don't think so. What happened to the Dixie chicks was worrying. Elton John complained the other day of the chilling effect on free expression. I guess they should slap themselves and thank the gods that they can work in a country where people will try to ruin your career if you express a different political preference than they.

And equating is not what I was doing - I said they were different in degree. Please read more carefully to avoid making such obvious mistakes.

The boycot isn't stopping people from voting for who they want... that's why it's a "secret ballot"... so you can lose the whole ballot and open society crap... it has nothing to do with this discussion.

Nice way to miss the point. Whether it was intentional or not, I don't know. I never said that boycotts stop people from voting for who they want. But boycotts like that against the Dixie Chicks are designed to prevent them from expressing views that others might accept and agree with. That is the point - don't pretend it is something else.

It's also about the fight of people not to have to spend their money to support companies they don't agree with.

Unfortunately, as I have said, the one is inimical to the other, unless there is a broad culture of tolerance, as there is in most other democratic societies.

Boycotts are a way of making a statement, and being heard. The target of the boycot can still do whatever they want. They can listen, and maybe change their ways for economic reasons... or they can ignore them, and accept what happens... Choice on BOTH sides.

Great, this effectively means that people who have unpopular views have a disincentive to voice them. Great, nice way of chilling free speech.

Yeah, and they can ignore your protest... a boycott can get their attention

seen this, refuted it twice now. Yes, a boycott can get their attention, but boycotts as a first response have other undesirable consequences as listed above. You can rave on until you are blue in the face that boycotts can sometimes make companies or individuals do what you want. I accept that, but it doesn't change the fact that some of the things people want are odious (like silencing the political opinions of others).

But they don't work as well sometimes...

Sometimes boycotts don't work either. So what? These other methods have the benefit of being non-coercive.

You keep saying things like that, but it seems most disagree with you on that point

Most people never think such issues through properly. I know, I have to grade their papers.

*edited to fix the mess I made of the quotes.

[Agathon]

Ming is clearly owning Agathon.

Actually he's taking a beating because he hasn't realized that he's spent the whole thread accusing me of something I never argued for.

[Agathon]

A summary:

All I've claimed is that it would be better if people could voice their political opinions without fear of economic persecution. If you don't think that would be better, then you obviously don't care that much about freedom of political expression. People who care about it wish to maximize it and oppose things that get in the way of this maximization.

I haven't said that to make this happen we should restrict consumers' ability to spend their money as they see fit (nowhere in this thread have I said that - Ming has spent the whole thread tilting at this particular windmill).

As I've said, I don't think a legal remedy would be workable as it's largely a cultural problem - an attitude shift is required. There's no way to force such a shift - people who want one have to persuade others of its value.

[Kidlicious]

I'm a little skeptical that America is the only nation that discourageous speech in this way.

[Agathon]

I'm a little skeptical that America is the only nation that discourageous speech in this way.

Well I can't think of this being an issue back home. I remember a few years back that a friend of mine went to a concert where the singer preached religion between songs. He said he didn't care much for it, but that it wasn't worth making a fuss over. Apparently the rest of the crowd felt the same way.

Back home consumer boycotts are rare, and I can't think of a case where someone has been mass boycotted for expressing political views. The attitude that we must try to silence by all legal means available I've observed only in student politics. And student politics are a joke anyway.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
Back home consumer boycotts are rare, and I can't think of a case where someone has been mass boycotted for expressing political views. The attitude that we must try to silence by all legal means available I've observed only in student politics. And student politics are a joke anyway.

Boycotts are certainly big here. Many on the Left use them, against companies for various things. I'm sure some boycott companies for what they say.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm a little skeptical that America is the only nation that discourageous speech in this way.

It isn't peculiar to the United States- a 'Christian' group in Melbourne called the Salt Shakers (presumably 'the Cruet Set' might have sounded like a New Romantic pop group) tried to claim success in creating an advertisers' boycott of the drama serial 'The L Word' because they didn't like its homophile agenda.

It was such a success that viewing figures for the show increased.

'By yesterday, to my knowledge four out of the five reported commercial advertisers - DaimlerChrysler, Roche, Allianz and Just Jeans - and the one community service organisation - The Open Family Foundation, set up by Fr Bob Maguire and now run by Les Twentyman - have clearly repudiated Mr Stokes' claims about his influence on their advertising policies. Apparently ratings for "The L Word" have jumped by 20% in response to Peter's efforts. Mikey Robbins said on "The Glasshouse" last night that before the Saltshakers he didn't know about the show and that they have now promoted it among straight men who fantasize about lesbian sex.'

http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=3089

The religionistas have a thing called shunning- a social version of the economic boycott. Peer pressure to behave yourself is a wonderful thing, ain't it?


"The shunning of an individual is the act of deliberately avoiding association with him or her. The historical punishments of ostracism and exile were forms of shunning. Today, shunning in an official, formalized manner is practiced by only a few religions, although it continues to be practiced informally in every sort of human grouping or gathering. Religious shunning is often referred to as excommunication.

A distinct practice sometimes confused with shunning involves the severing of ties between new members and those of their friends and family who disapprove of the faith. Scientologists coined the word disconnection to refer to that practice.

Shunning aims to protect a group from members who have committed acts seen as harmful to the shunning organization, or who violate the group's norms. As the practice may end marriages, break up families, and separate children from their parents (or vice versa), it is particularly controversial. "

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Shunning

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
Actually he's taking a beating because he hasn't realized that he's spent the whole thread accusing me of something I never argued for.

Fortunately, you seem to be in the minority of this opinion.

You say you have "proved" your point... yet you ingore anything that proves you wrong. Your proof that a letter is better is that it has worked for you in the past... Well, it hasn't worked for everybody.

Boycots have worked for many people...

You keep claiming that you aren't trying to limit the right to boycotts... but then claim it's bad and makes cultures that use them stupid... Your approach WOULD limit a persons rights...

Whatever... fortunately, people can see through your little games... You've lost, and you don't even realize it

[MosesPresley]

I remember the beef boycott in the 70's. iirc, it worked pretty well and the prices stabilized.