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

[Gibsie]

I was just assuming that the Cult of Apolyton had spread so far you can't even go to a gay bar without people knowing who the most contraversial posters are...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Who the hell is Linda Rondstadt?

She dated Barney Gumble at one time, IIRC.

Lest we forget, she was Jerry Brown's common-law spouse/girlfriend for many many years.




Now I'll have to explain who Jerry Brown was/is to the kids.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I was just assuming that the Cult of Apolyton had spread so far you can't even go to a gay bar without people knowing who the most contraversial posters are...

I wouldnt call Ben Kenobi a contraversial poster.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But you don't see pro-Bush celebrities being attacked for their viewpoints.

*cough* Tom Selleck on the Rosie O'Donnell Show *cough*

The two actions are not equivalent. One is voicing an opinion on a action- the other voicing an opinion on an opinion.

They are 'not equivalent' on a technicality that one is on an action and the other is on an opinion. There is practically and morally no difference between voicing an opinion on an action or another opinion. When you voice an opinion on a political action you are basically voicing your opinion on the politician's opinion of what the world should be.

Any difference between the two is trivial.

boycotting someone for their opinion is the same as saying they have done something wrong- how on earth do we serve freedom of speech if syaing something can be labelled as "wrong" not in a factual but moral sense?

Um... part of freedom of speech is that we have the right to attempt to convince people their opinions are wrong using our own opinions. To deny that is to deny free speech. It doesn't matter if it is to change opinion through pressure. The pressure is from the opinions of other people in the society. You cannot have free speech if you don't allow people to express their own opinions through boycotts and verbal pressure. It's essential.

If Ben got on stage in a gay bar in Chelsea and spoke against gay marriage and the audience booed him and forced him out and tore at his picture, they would be as misguided as this one. In a society with real freedom of speech and tolerance of it, people would listen to all he had to say-then le him get off, then speak counter to what he said. That is freedom of speech and toleration.

It's a private bar. They didn't come to hear a gay basher come in. Free speech doesn't mean you have to just let every ELSE speak and not voice your own opinion. Free speech allows you to heckle and boo and tell him to get off the stage.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Free speech doesn't mean you have to just let every ELSE speak and not voice your own
opinion. Free speech allows you to heckle and boo and tell him to get off the stage or field.

Italics mine.

Friggin A' right. Go EAGLES!!

[Gibsie]

But you don't see pro-Bush celebrities being attacked for their viewpoints.

*cough* Tom Selleck on the Rosie O'Donnell Show *cough*

And indeed, I don't think many of us did see Tom Selleck on the Rosie O'Donnell Show! Are you willing to admit you watch the Rosie O'Donnell Show, Imran?

Originally posted by SpencerH
I wouldnt call Ben Kenobi a contraversial poster.

His views on contraversial subjects are not shared by the majority of posters and he often gets attacked quite badly for them. Other than PA, who is more trollish than contraversial, I can't think of anyone more contraversial. And I don't think BK would be upset by the label I have jokingly applied to him either, given that he's proud of his beliefs (nothing wrong with that).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They are 'not equivalent' on a technicality that one is on an action and the other is on an opinion. There is practically and morally no difference between voicing an opinion on an action or another opinion. When you voice an opinion on a political action you are basically voicing your opinion on the politician's opinion of what the world should be.

Any difference between the two is trivial.

An opinion is inherently different from an action-Bush has taken policy actions based on his opinions that affect every American in some way. alrge or small. Me saying "I dislike Bush" is just an opinion which has no effect on you save if I excercise my right to vote against him. To criticize Bush's opinion and actions verbally is fine. To protest government actions is fine. To protest the opinions of a fellow private citizen outside of the government is distinctly different.

Um... part of freedom of speech is that we have the right to attempt to convince people their opinions are wrong using our own opinions. To deny that is to deny free speech. It doesn't matter if it is to change opinion through pressure. The pressure is from the opinions of other people in the society. You cannot have free speech if you don't allow people to express their own opinions through boycotts and verbal pressure. It's essential.

No, it is not essential for freedom of speech to boycott the opinions of other private individuals. In a free market of idea the only pressure to change your opinion should come internally after analysing the ideas others have given you-that is called making up your own mind- if you think coming to an opinion freely from your own analysis of the information is equal to an opinion arrived at through pressure from outsiders to confrom, then I must say you have a strange view of freedom.

It's a private bar. They didn't come to hear a gay basher come in. Free speech doesn't mean you have to just let every ELSE speak and not voice your own opinion. Free speech allows you to heckle and boo and tell him to get off the stage.

While I realize mentioning a private business add other rights to the mixture-but the point remains that to boycott others for their private opinions is a detriment to freedom of speech. Otehr rights might intersede, but boycotting people for their private opinions again is not a fundamental part of freedom of speech.

[Kuciwalker]

An opinion is inherently different from an action-Bush has taken policy actions based on his opinions that affect every American in some way. alrge or small. Me saying "I dislike Bush" is just an opinion which has no effect on you save if I excercise my right to vote against him. To criticize Bush's opinion and actions verbally is fine. To protest government actions is fine. To protest the opinions of a fellow private citizen outside of the government is distinctly different.

That's EXACTLY what you're doing, though. You're protesting Imran's opinion.

[Agathon]

Gee... you aren't very tolerant of people who express different views than your own... you just insult them, and state your point of view while ignoring theirs... So much for being a member of a so called tolerant society

Do I argue that they should be fired from their jobs, or that they should be boycotted?

No.

Case closed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

That's EXACTLY what you're doing, though. You're protesting Imran's opinion.

NO, I am disagreeing with him and carrying out a debate. For me to protest him, I would write to the Mods trying to get him banned and put him on the ignore list.

That is the difference.

[Imran Siddiqui]

To protest the opinions of a fellow private citizen outside of the government is distinctly different.

But it isn't. Just because a fellow private citizen's opinions don't affect you (and many times they may.. if they run a corporation for instance) doesn't mean that boycotting that opinion is any different than boycotting the opinions of someone in government. You disagree with that opinion, which you are subjected to in some way, and you wish to make it know that you disagree and do not wish to be subjected to it anymore.

The Dixie Chicks is a prime example. People did not agree with their opinions and to make that known they did not want to listen to their songs on the radio.

it is not essential for freedom of speech to boycott the opinions of other private individuals.

Of course it is. Having the right to express your disaproval of a prominent private individual is essential for freedom of speech and that is what a boycott does. The NAACP must have the right to boycott the President of Tyson Foods who says 'blacks are dumb' (or something).

if you think coming to an opinion freely from your own analysis of the information is equal to an opinion arrived at through pressure from outsiders to confrom

It's just about the same thing. 'Coming to an opinion freely' is a misnomer. The other debate partner is pressuring you by saying your opinion is incorrect. Boycott is just taking that and expanding it. Saying that your opinion is 'incorrect' and we'll make it known.

What do you think debate is? If you don't say your opponent's opinion is wrong then why debate in the first place?

boycotting people for their private opinions again is not a fundamental part of freedom of speech.

I disagree wholeheartedly. I think without people having the right to boycott people for their private opinions freedom of speech is cheapened.

For me to protest him, I would write to the Mods trying to get him banned and put him on the ignore list.

The boycott (such as it were) here wasn't to get Rondstadt fired, even though that is what happened, but to express displeasure of her opinions by the audience.

I don't think many of us did see Tom Selleck on the Rosie O'Donnell Show! Are you willing to admit you watch the Rosie O'Donnell Show, Imran?

It was a pretty decent sized controversy in the US. I'm sure Sava knows what I'm talking about.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But you don't see pro-Bush celebrities being attacked for their viewpoints.

*cough* Tom Selleck on the Rosie O'Donnell Show *cough*

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.

[Agathon]

The Dixie Chicks is a prime example. People did not agree with their opinions and to make that known they did not want to listen to their songs on the radio.

Such people obviously hate the idea that people might express opinions they disagree with, and hate the idea that opinions should not be suppressed so that a free exchange of ideas can take place.

Jesus, I think Tom Selleck is a bit of a doofus when it comes to politics. But I don't think that we should boycott his shows or disrupt his means of making a living simply because he says things I disagree with. Selleck should feel free to express his political opinions, unless it is a matter of serious hate (which it isn't with him), without fear of endangering his livelihood.

If we have differences with Selleck's politics, our society has a way of resolving them - it is called the ballot. Any other way just works against the free exchange of ideas.

It's a cultural problem. What kind of person immediately thinks, upon hearing a dissenting opinion, "what is the most efficient way of ensuring that this is never said again?" I don't think that way: I'm more of the "why do I disagree with Selleck, and what is the best argument against his position?" sort of person.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
you wish to make it know that you disagree and do not wish to be subjected to it anymore.

The Dixie Chicks is a prime example. People did not agree with their opinions and to make that known they did not want to listen to their songs on the radio.

That last sentence is the crux of the issue: "not to be subjected"? A private citizen can;t "subject you" to their opinion unless they have some other power over you directly. People are free to opt out of hearing someone- different from trying to force them to change their viewpoint or to surrender and keep shut. If you don't want to hear someone in the public, you opt out- you don't try to remove their ability to speak.

Of course it is. Having the right to express your disaproval of a prominent private individual is essential for freedom of speech and that is what a boycott does. The NAACP must have the right to boycott the President of Tyson Foods who says 'blacks are dumb' (or something).

Corporations are not private citizens, they are private business organizations and if they are publicly traded, they have thousands of share owners and so forth. Hence private citizen=/ business and its officials.

It's just about the same thing. 'Coming to an opinion freely' is a misnomer. The other debate partner is pressuring you by saying your opinion is incorrect. Boycott is just taking that and expanding it. Saying that your opinion is 'incorrect' and we'll make it known.

- ah, the "screw with definitions" game again. NO, telling you " I think you are wrong" is not pressure. Telling you "I think you are wrong, and I will make sure you lose financially becuase of it", that is pressure.

What do you think debate is? If you don't say your opponent's opinion is wrong then why debate in the first place?

Saying someone else is wrong is not "pressure". Period.

I disagree wholeheartedly. I think without people having the right to boycott people for their private opinions freedom of speech is cheapened.

People have the right to vote for populists demagogues as well- and I would not argue that they should be denied it. But just as voting for a populist demogogue is using your rights to undermine them, so is boycotting someone for their opinions one way someone can use their right to make it harder for all of us to trully use them.

[Agathon]

Of course it is. Having the right to express your disaproval of a prominent private individual is essential for freedom of speech and that is what a boycott does

One does not equal the other. I can express my disapproval by simply expressing the contrary opinion, by writing the said individual a letter expressing my opinion, or writing to the papers. There's no reason why I have to attack this person's livelihood.

I don't agree with the Tyson foods boycott. What about all the other people at Tyson foods who will be affected because of this person's stupid comments?