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

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Ming
And Lefty, $300 an hour...

That is only Lefty 'retired' lite, for just jawboning. If still in regular practice with staff and doing litigation, it would be closer to $800 an hour.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I bow to your greed.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
That is only Lefty 'retired' lite, for just jawboning. If still in regular practice with staff and doing litigation, it would be closer to $800 an hour.

Ahhhh... it's just the opposite for me. I'm billable at $250 an hour. But if you want me for a speaking engagement, and I don't give them a freebee, I can usually earn a grand or two for a couple of hours. I love the speaking circuit

[Lefty Scaevola]

Just do not interject any urelated political sentiments, it ruins your marketability. (of course us craft old lawyers are skill it making it look related to the topic) Naditroy Continuing Legal Education is a great boondoggle, creating full employment for legal speakings, but not educating anyone. I could fit all the new stuff I have learned at the seminars over the past 25 years on one sheet of legal paper, 10pt type, double spaced.

[Agathon]

Wrt freedom of fear or reprisal, I think it appropriate to understand that ability to voice one's opinion should always be maintained but likewise one should always remember your stated views then allow others the oportunity to likewise voice theirs.

Nothing I've said prevents anyone from voicing their opinion. I think it is a good thing if people do so. That is a separate question from whether it is right to use boycotts in an attempt to silence opinions you disagree with.

If you fear confrontation of ideas how is this any different, it in effect muzzles folk from voicing their opinion?

I agree. But the whole point of open discussion is that people are going to disagree. Getting the disagreements out in the open so that people can make up their own minds is the whole point. Someone who wanted our cultural norm to be that no one ever publicly disagrees with them would undermine the whole point of free political expression.

Again, this is different from using boycotts to silence others although it would have a similar effect in preventing citizens reaping the benefit of free political expression.

It does raise an issue. One that universally seems to be held but not necessarily correctly. It is generally believed that public personailities sacrifice their private life once held in the public eye. The paparazzi following public figures spying on them etc. is an indication that all is fair once in the public eye. The price of fame as it were.

I think this is a false and dangerous belief. I do not see why anyone, be they entertainer, company president or ordinary joe, should be the subject of boycotts because they endorse a political candidate.

Knowing this is inevitable tho' public figures (entertainers, CEO's politicians) need to understand their actions and words carry much more weight than the little man (to use Ming phraseology). As a conseqeunce their choice to voice controversial statements is in fact their choice and will have intended or unintended consequences. There is little that can be done regarding this unless they choose to pull a Johnny Carson and retreat from the world or otherwise yield their fame.

We know this, and it is also true for people like Rupert Murdoch. It is just a consequence of the fact that airtime is a scarce resource. It would be nice if everyone had the same access to the media, but it is unworkable. It is a price we pay for having the kind of society that we have.

Having said that, it is very easy to voice your disagreement with what a celebrity or journalist says without engaging in boycotts. Protests, letters, websites, petitions all work. In fact, the way that our media works is that if someone like Natalie Maines says something nasty about Bush, it gets reported and discussed by people who are both pro and contra what she said. There is no need to try to shut her up, since the opposite view gets a fair hearing and people can make up their own minds. That guy who has the I hate Michael Moore website got a lot of press and was interviewed on the TV numerous times about his views. No one can say that the anti-Moore faction hasn't had a fair shake from most of the mainstream media.

In any case I fail to see how people in America were harmed by Natalie Maines saying that she didn't like George Bush at a concert in the UK.

Moreover, the distinction between political issues and other issues becomes blurred and is not readily discernible. In the example, MtG posed the use of lefitist companies over right wing leaning companies may on the one hand be a decision to help the environment or it could also be a decision based upon politics.

I don't think it is blurred at all. One can consistently refuse to support a company for its business practices, but disagree with attempts to boycott it for the politics of its CEO.

As you say, it can be one or the other. I think that one is justifiable (in some cases) and the other is not.

If we follow the saying everything is politically motivated this then doesn't allow for boycotts at all, which you have repeatedly stated is not necessarily what you espouse

Our market behaviour is generally not politically motivated. I do not buy my shoes, nor almost anything else, based on the politics of the owner of the company. I buy it based on the quality of the product and its price.

The fact that in other countries boycotts of the Dixie Chicks kind are rare and shunned by most of the populace shows that it is possible to separate these issues.

You have uncovered one of the problems with allowing politics to determine our purchasing choices. If everyone buys only from people who support their own views, then the market will operate less efficiently than if we make choices based on price and quality: bringing electoral politics in it disrupts what we want the market to do.

Even in the case of Ronstadt, the displeasure may have been the invoking and hatred of leftist Moore or may have been a more gutteral reaction that was more along the lines of "Can't I just go to one damn Vegas show without having to listen to political messages". In the first case one could easily argue the political leanings of the crowd were the base motive while in the second it would be much more difficult, IMO.

From the accounts in the news it seems pretty political.

Finally, even if one were able to separate political ideology from more mundane issues what makes political issues more sacred to protect than those of a more mundane nature. Isn't the purpose of free speach to protect all topics of speach, not just those of particular importance to specific people?

Well, political speech is more important to the functioning of a democracy than free speech over what records to buy or what clothes to wear. And it's also the case that boycotts are always over some political issue. I mean no one cares if Ted Nugent expresses his preference for a certain breed of dog.

But I have few problems with extending it to other kinds of speech.

We have a choice over what we do when confronted with a political opinion we don't like. We can either (a) do everything within our power to stop it being expressed, or (b) accept that people have different opinions than us and that we can respond in kind, and express our disagreement at the ballot box (where everyone is equal).

Imagine if you were a Republican who owned a store in a predominantly Democratic town. Perhaps you want to express your support for Bush by campaigning for him. Of course all the Democrats in the town have the right to shop elsewhere, but is it fair for your political opinion to be stifled because of them? Does it help open debate of the issues? I would say not. If the Democrats want to respond in kind, they can put up Democratic posters in their windows.

It's perfectly possible to separate electoral politics from our ordinary market dealings - it works this way where I come from. In fact it is more efficient to do so, since the market operates best if people buy based on quality and price. In my home town I regularly bought records at a store owned by devout right wing capitalists (if you know me my choice of record store is almost a religious issue). We talked politics and disagreed, but I wouldn't dream of not being their customer for that reason. They were nice people and ran a good store. We had elections to resolve our political differences, there was no reason to bring politics into our commercial interactions.

Why should I use my economic power solely to prevent others from expressing their political opinions. I certainly wouldn't want them to do the same for me.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Agathon
Similarly, boycotting the Dixie Chicks because you think their music is an evil influence on children (!) is different from boycotting it because their singer says that she doesn't like George Bush. In the first case your aim is to prevent harm coming to children, whereas in the second case your aim is to prevent someone saying something you disagree with.

I'm not even going to respond to this. I'm just going to call attention to an argument that is weak, even for Agathon...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
Nothing I've said prevents anyone from voicing their opinion. I think it is a good thing if people do so. That is a separate question from whether it is right to use boycotts in an attempt to silence opinions you disagree with.

Again... you equate boycotts with an attempt to silence opinions as if that's always the case. It isn't. They aren't telling the person they should stop talking, or to support a side they don't believe in... they are SAYING that they do not wish to give money to a person that disagrees with them... And while you continue to say you don't want to take away the right to boycott, you do want to limit them to non political issues... which is still infringing on their rights. You are trying to defend free speech by infrininging others free speech... something you fail to understand.

I agree. But the whole point of open discussion is that people are going to disagree. Getting the disagreements out in the open so that people can make up their own minds is the whole point. Someone who wanted our cultural norm to be that no one ever publicly disagrees with them would undermine the whole point of free political expression.

Boycotts are a way of disagreeing and bringing it out in to the open for discussion. Again, famous people have the advantage of the Press... Little people can only get that with other methods like boycotts. You are limiting the rights of the little people to get the same type of coverage that the rich fat cats get... is that what you are really supporting... the rich over the poor?

Again, this is different from using boycotts to silence others although it would have a similar effect in preventing citizens reaping the benefit of free political expression.

Again with the silence stuff... it makes discussion possible by allowing both sides to be heard.

I think this is a false and dangerous belief. I do not see why anyone, be they entertainer, company president or ordinary joe, should be the subject of boycotts because they endorse a political candidate.

Again.. you are protecting free speech only for the rich guy... This sure doesn't seem like your normal rants

We know this, and it is also true for people like Rupert Murdoch. It is just a consequence of the fact that airtime is a scarce resource. It would be nice if everyone had the same access to the media, but it is unworkable. It is a price we pay for having the kind of society that we have.

People can get the same access to the media by staging boycotts... which are far more effective for getting press than simple protests... But again, you want to limit it by taking it away from the little guy, leaving the media to the rich and famous...

Having said that, it is very easy to voice your disagreement with what a celebrity or journalist says without engaging in boycotts. Protests, letters, websites, petitions all work.

And so do boycotts... and boycotts are usually more effective because the target has to listen, and just can't ignore them... or they set up protest zones far away from events so people don't even get to see the protests... and petitions are only laughed at in many cases because there is no consequences for just IGNORING THEM. They all have their place, some more effective than others... but you want to restrict a basic form of protest.

In fact, the way that our media works is that if someone like Natalie Maines says something nasty about Bush, it gets reported and discussed by people who are both pro and contra what she said. There is no need to try to shut her up, since the opposite view gets a fair hearing and people can make up their own minds. That guy who has the I hate Michael Moore website got a lot of press and was interviewed on the TV numerous times about his views. No one can say that the anti-Moore faction hasn't had a fair shake from most of the mainstream media.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA Our agency did a press clippings check (for a new business pitch) and the pro Moore forces are just kicking the crap out of the anti Moore forces... fair shake
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHA

In any case I fail to see how people in America were harmed by Natalie Maines saying that she didn't like George Bush at a concert in the UK.

What does "harm" have to do with. People can decide to support her economically or not... for whatever reasons... they have a right to spend their money however they want without being told by people like you how to do it.

I don't think it is blurred at all. One can consistently refuse to support a company for its business practices, but disagree with attempts to boycott it for the politics of its CEO.

There is no differences between boycotts for business practices or politics. It's a person right to decide for what ever reasons they want to support a company or not economically... we call it free choice. You can talk about how one side is effected, but the other side, which you keep seeming to ignore is effected as well.
Rights are a two way street... not one way as you would like them to be.

Our market behaviour is generally not politically motivated. I do not buy my shoes, nor almost anything else, based on the politics of the owner of the company. I buy it based on the quality of the product and its price.

And that's your choice... your rigth to buy for whatever reasons you want. Some people support or not support for other reasons... some political... nothing wrong with that since it is THEIR MONEY.

The fact that in other countries boycotts of the Dixie Chicks kind are rare and shunned by most of the populace shows that it is possible to separate these issues.

Uhhh... why would countries people boycott the Dixie Chicks... I thought they all hate the US anyway... I wouldn't be suprised if their sales went up outside the US after their Anti US statements... If that happened, wouldn't that be kind of a reverse political boycott... like paying people to say the right things

You have uncovered one of the problems with allowing politics to determine our purchasing choices. If everyone buys only from people who support their own views, then the market will operate less efficiently than if we make choices based on price and quality: bringing electoral politics in it disrupts what we want the market to do.

There is no such thing as a truely "FREE MARKET" Many things make the market opereate less effecient... There is no need to pick on just this one little thing, since there are many far more important things that already disrupt free markets. To use it as a defense of your point of view here is weak at best.

Well, political speech is more important to the functioning of a democracy than free speech over what records to buy or what clothes to wear. And it's also the case that boycotts are always over some political issue. I mean no one cares if Ted Nugent expresses his preference for a certain breed of dog.

I can understand the point you are trying to make... but the right to vote for whom you want isn't effected by polictical boycotts... you can still vote for whomever you want... the vote is "secret"... And while you may want to claim certain rights are more important... some might not consider them in the same order you do. Plus, they are all still basic rights... If people don't want to give their hard earned money to somebody because they don't share common beliefs... you can't make them.

We have a choice over what we do when confronted with a political opinion we don't like. We can either (a) do everything within our power to stop it being expressed, or (b) accept that people have different opinions than us and that we can respond in kind, and express our disagreement at the ballot box (where everyone is equal).

While everybody is equal when it comes to the ballot box, they aren't equal in their ability to get their message out to others. Rich Entertainers get their messages heard all the time... (why people care what these morons say is a different topic entirely) It's not fair to the little guy that they can't have their view given to such a wide audience. A boycott levels the playing the field...

Imagine if you were a Republican who owned a store in a predominantly Democratic town. Perhaps you want to express your support for Bush by campaigning for him. Of course all the Democrats in the town have the right to shop elsewhere, but is it fair for your political opinion to be stifled because of them? Does it help open debate of the issues? I would say not. If the Democrats want to respond in kind, they can put up Democratic posters in their windows.

You have already answered your own point... they have the right... and it's fair. And that might lead to a discussion with the Republican, because he's more likely to listen to what they have to say So it can open debate of the issues. Your assumption that it can't open debate is a false one. Does it sometimes... sure, Does it sometime open debate... YEP... Like everything, there are two sides. Somebody lecturing to a crowd of people at a musical concert their political beliefs is NOT an open discussion... and that's a fact.

It's perfectly possible to separate electoral politics from our ordinary market dealings - it works this way where I come from. In fact it is more efficient to do so, since the market operates best if people buy based on quality and price.

There is no need to seperate electoral politics from market dealings. Again.. this is a MINOR factor at best when it comes to market effeciency... There are far more important factors that wipe out any effect caused by political boycotts.

In my home town I regularly bought records at a store owned by devout right wing capitalists (if you know me my choice of record store is almost a religious issue). We talked politics and disagreed, but I wouldn't dream of not being their customer for that reason. They were nice people and ran a good store. We had elections to resolve our political differences, there was no reason to bring politics into our commercial interactions.

As is your right... YOU get to make YOUR own choices. You seem to want to take this right away from people.
People have the right to use economics to effects politics. Rich folk do it all the time by contributing large ammounts of money to candidates... Economics and Politics go hand in hand... and it seems like you only want to limit the little guy.

Why should I use my economic power solely to prevent others from expressing their political opinions. I certainly wouldn't want them to do the same for me.

Again... it's your choice to do as you wish. But it isn't your right to cram your ideas down others throats.
It is not immoral or evil to use political boycotts... there is nothing wrong with it. All you offer up is your opinion, and for that, you want to take away the rights of others.

You have the choice to do as you wish and believe... let others have that same choice And just because others believe differently, that doesn't make them wrong or bad.

But since they do disagree with you, I'm sure you will just look down your nose them and call them stupid, as you do to everybody that disagrees with you.

[Agathon]

Again... you equate boycotts with an attempt to silence opinions as if that's always the case. It isn't. They aren't telling the person they should stop talking, or to support a side they don't believe in... they are SAYING that they do not wish to give money to a person that disagrees with them...

No. Someone who stops funding a political candidate is doing that. They are "giving" money to them. People were "buying" things from the Dixie Chicks. Things which had nothing whatsoever to do with politics.

And while you continue to say you don't want to take away the right to boycott, you do want to limit them to non political issues...

No. You are making that up. I've never said that there should be any legal limits to boycotts, only that it would be better with regard to open political expression if people didn't engage in boycotts to suppress political expression.

You show me why saying "it would be better if..." entails commitment to "...there must be a law to make it so". After all, I think the world would be a better place if there were less adultery, but I don't think there should be a law against it.

which is still infringing on their rights. You are trying to defend free speech by infrininging others free speech... something you fail to understand.

First: characterizing buying as speaking is a strained metaphor - but leave that for now. Secondly, as I showed above, I advocated no such thing. Even if we buy your argument, free speech also covers the freedom not to speak. Asking people to refrain from something violates no rights.

Boycotts are a way of disagreeing and bringing it out in to the open for discussion.

You must be kidding. The boycott of the Dixie Chicks could hardly have been designed to open discussion about something that was dominating the airwaves over the civilized world. It was clearly designed to be a financial incentive to them to shut up, and a warning to anyone else who dared speak their mind.

Again, famous people have the advantage of the Press... Little people can only get that with other methods like boycotts.

You keep repeating this, but it is false. They can get it in lots of different ways and frequently do.

You are limiting the rights of the little people to get the same type of coverage that the rich fat cats get... is that what you are really supporting... the rich over the poor

Hardly. The rich have much more of a financial leverage over the poor than the other way around. Acceptance of this sort of behaviour favours the rich since they could conceivably use their freedoms to fire employees that campaign for politicians they don't like.

Again with the silence stuff... it makes discussion possible by allowing both sides to be heard.

What a load of rubbish. Both sides were already heard in spades over the war. If anything, it was the anti-war side that wasn't getting much coverage. At least make your arguments plausible given the example.

And so do boycotts... and boycotts are usually more effective because the target has to listen, and just can't ignore them...

And this works even better when the shoe is on the other foot and some rich guy is trying to screw the little people.

or they set up protest zones far away from events so people don't even get to see the protests... and petitions are only laughed at in many cases because there is no consequences for just IGNORING THEM. They all have their place, some more effective than others... but you want to restrict a basic form of protest.

Again, I advocated restricting nothing by force, legal or otherwise. Again, why should anyone want to protest the Dixie Chicks for expressing their opinion, unless they wanted to silence them? There was certainly no need to provoke discussion on something the whole world was talking about.

ur agency did a press clippings check (for a new business pitch) and the pro Moore forces are just kicking the crap out of the anti Moore forces... fair shake

Who cares? For weeks I saw both sides going at it on television. I don't watch that much TV and even I saw both sides get their point across.

What does "harm" have to do with. People can decide to support her economically or not... for whatever reasons... they have a right to spend their money however they want without being told by people like you how to do it.

If everyone acts this way, free speech will suffer as people will be afraid to express themselves for fear of economic persecution. People may be free to do it, but that doesn't mean that refraining from doing it might lead to a better result.

Again, you are accusing me of wanting to legislate where I have clearly said that is not an option. The least you could do is acknowledge that after five pages.

And that's your choice... your rigth to buy for whatever reasons you want. Some people support or not support for other reasons... some political... nothing wrong with that since it is THEIR MONEY

Sure, but if you say you support the idea of an open society, you won't boycott people for making political statements. That is a direct contradiction of your own belief, since you are contributing to a more closed society.

I doubt that the people who boycotted the Dixie Chicks believe in an open society or free speech for people they don't like anyway....

Many things make the market opereate less effecient... There is no need to pick on just this one little thing, since there are many far more important things that already disrupt free markets. To use it as a defense of your point of view here is weak at best.

This is a fallacy. It's like saying "burglaries are only one form of crime that afflicts our society, so who cares about them?"

While everybody is equal when it comes to the ballot box, they aren't equal in their ability to get their message out to others. Rich Entertainers get their messages heard all the time... (why people care what these morons say is a different topic entirely) It's not fair to the little guy that they can't have their view given to such a wide audience. A boycott levels the playing the field...

It does nothing of the sort. The same rationale that you support for boycotting can be used to justify firing people for their political beliefs. Rich entertainers are not the only people who get their beliefs heard all the time, corporate bigwigs do as well. When it comes down to coercion through the withholding of money, the rich win 90% of the time.

All that happens if you allow political boycotts is that the people with the most economic power (i.e rich people) get to threaten small people into silence.

Your assumption that it can't open debate is a false one. Does it sometimes... sure, Does it sometime open debate... YEP...

None of the boycotters wanted to debate Natalie Maines, they just wanted to shut her up. Whoever holds the economic whip hand gets to call the tune, they might just want to debate, but more likely they just want to force the others to do what they want. That is what happened in this case.

Now stop accusing me of wanting to force anyone to do anything. I simply said it would be better if they refrained from such boycotts.