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

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Agathon


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

No.

Case closed.

Damn I wish I had the quote from you that urged the killing of all conservatives.

[Agathon]

Killing? Maiming perhaps.

[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.

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.

That is probably true... doesn't mean that they don't have to right to boycott however.

If you don't want to hear someone in the public, you opt out- you don't try to remove their ability to speak.

You are removing their abilty to speak to YOU! No one who is boycotting is saying these people can't say what they want ever, they are saying they don't want to hear them. That is a big difference.

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.

Interesting distinction you make so you can be allowed to boycott corporations but not people . So what if they are big and composed of a lot of people? It is the same thing.

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.

Are you saying that in a debate one side doesn't pressure the other to change your mind by their arguments? Seriously? That's the whole point! To use your arguments to disprove your opponents and pressure them with your arguments to see that your way is right and theirs was wrong.

Using finances is simply a way to show your displeasure.

just as voting for a populist demogogue is using your rights to undermine them

How are you undermining your rights by USING them? You are using your right to vote, exercising those rights.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You are removing their abilty to speak to YOU! No one who is boycotting is saying these people can't say what they want ever, they are saying they don't want to hear them. That is a big difference.

What am I removing? I am saying they are wrong- I have not said what they did should be illegal....first of all. As for hearing people's political opinions: if you don;t want to hear them, fine, don't hear them the thing is most artists don't express their opinions on all their work. I have a friend who won't watch any movies with Charleton Heston becuase he heads the NRA. Well, I find that silly since Heston doesn't spout about gun rights in The Ten Commandments.

Interesting distinction you make so you can be allowed to boycott corporations but not people . So what if they are big and composed of a lot of people? It is the same thing.

AH, NO. The government, after all, is just big and composed of people also. Are you saying corporation=government? That is as wrong as saying individual=corporation.

Are you saying that in a debate one side doesn't pressure the other to change your mind by their arguments? Seriously? That's the whole point! To use your arguments to disprove your opponents and pressure them with your arguments to see that your way is right and theirs was wrong.

If I debate someone, I am presenting information they could use to change their mind. My desire might be to have them change their mind, but in the end the other party is totally free not to do it, and they suffer NOTHING other than lost time if they decided to debate me. A boycott is designed to hurt them financially in order to make them cave in. It is then a punishment for not thinking like you want them to think. That is fundamentally different from telling them you disapprove and telling them why, without forcing them to even listen to you.

Using finances is simply a way to show your displeasure.

Yes, your displeasure that they think otherwise- how enlightened.

How are you undermining your rights by USING them? You are using your right to vote, exercising those rights.

To envoke Godwin cause it is the perfect time- the Germans who voted for Hitler and his radical notions voted in essence to dismantle the very system that gave them the right to vote. I could use my freedom to walk into a cage anbd lock it, thus ending my freedom. Bob could end his "right to bear arms" by using the arm he bears to shoot himself in the head.

Care to say again you can;t use your rights to undermine their use?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have a friend who won't watch any movies with Charleton Heston becuase he heads the NRA. Well, I find that silly since Heston doesn't spout about gun rights in The Ten Commandments.

But he's making a statement about Heston's beliefs that he doesn't agree. What is so wrong with that?

The government, after all, is just big and composed of people also. Are you saying corporation=government?

The government has a monopoly on the use of legitimate force. What is the difference between a corporation and individual?

I am presenting information they could use to change their mind.

But you want them to change their mind. Your information and words serve to attempt to pressure them into changing their mind.

A boycott is designed to hurt them financially in order to make them cave in. It is then a punishment for not thinking like you want them to think. That is fundamentally different from telling them you disapprove and telling them why, without forcing them to even listen to you.

No, a boycott, like the on Rondstadt suffered to hurt them financially to say I don't agree with you and won't be supporting your work anymore because I don't like your beliefs. Its not a punishment, it is simply not wanting to support someone who believes that. If a big time actor came out and said the Holocaust was a fake, and someone decided not to ever see a movie of his again, that's a punishment?

To envoke Godwin cause it is the perfect time- the Germans who voted for Hitler and his radical notions voted in essence to dismantle the very system that gave them the right to vote. I could use my freedom to walk into a cage anbd lock it, thus ending my freedom. Bob could end his "right to bear arms" by using the arm he bears to shoot himself in the head.

In neither of those cases did the people undermine their rights... they USED them! Maybe they used their rights so in the future there would be a change in rights, but they still utilized their rights. A vote to eliminate the vote is still using your rights (not undermining them). To undermine your rights, the action must weaken the foundation of use. It's silly to say that the 'use (the action) weakens the foundation of use', because you are using it (using weakens using?). The foundation may be weakened later by those in power, but it is not done so simply by the act of voting (exercising your right). Furthermore undermining usually applies to clandestine attempts to weaken. Voting openly does not apply.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Boycotting = not supporting your political enemies, not contributing to the financial power of thoses who oppose you, which is what really upsets the lefstist whiners, they have less resources to push their propaganda.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Ming
Many people are fired, and are escorted off the property with their personal items shipped to them... but I guess some people have to make this a right wing vs left wing rant... typical

Ming, you should make better arguments or not try to make arguments at all.

People who are escorted off the property after being fired are usually escorted out of private areas where non-employees aren't normally allowed, where there are work-specific materials or information, owned by the employer, that the employer needs to make sure aren't taken. That's pretty dramatically different from being forced out of your own hotel room, in a public area, and subjected to needless public humiliation as if you were a threat to society.

I'm sure the hotel owner has a legal right to evict whomever he pleases. My point is only that this hostile treatment was primarily political, not business-related. Another performer probably could have gotten up on stage and expressed support for Hitler or the Klan or one of the US-supported dictators, and would not have gotten similar ill treatment.

[Lefty Scaevola]

That treatment was almsot assureddly the result of her pissing at the cassino, more than once, rather than the one political statment.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Ming
I'm not kidding... Casinos are in business to make money... anybody that pisses off paying customers is a liability. They would have done the same to either somebody that supported Moore, or bashed Moore, "IF" it cost them "Paying" customers.

That's why I had already acknowledged that terminating her employment made sense. 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.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

In light of the reaction of the crowd I would say they were within there rights and handled it appropriately rather than run the risk of her getting involved with an upset patron and allowing a row to start up.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Wasn't an insult, just an observation

I consider "I guess some people have to make this a right wing vs left wing rant... typical" to be an insulting, as well as erroneous, observation. I'm insulted by the implication that my thinking is habitually knee-jerk.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm insulted by the implication that my thinking is habitually knee-jerk.

Then I suggest you grow thicker skin .

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But he's making a statement about Heston's beliefs that he doesn't agree. What is so wrong with that?

I think it silly to boycott unrelated art due to your opinion of the artists.

The government has a monopoly on the use of legitimate force. What is the difference between a corporation and individual?

Well, the fact a corporation is only an "individual" by a legal contrivance for liability reasons. It shjould be plainly obvious why an individual is NOT the same as a corporation.

But you want them to change their mind. Your information and words serve to attempt to pressure them into changing their mind.

Man, are you being thick or what? Pressure implies the application of some type of force. Unless you are a mental invalid, or under some sort of hypnosis, stating my opinion in no way counts as a method of force, unless I implicitly or explicitly metion possible force being used in the future if you don;t get into line.

No, a boycott, like the on Rondstadt suffered to hurt them financially to say I don't agree with you and won't be supporting your work anymore because I don't like your beliefs. Its not a punishment, it is simply not wanting to support someone who believes that. If a big time actor came out and said the Holocaust was a fake, and someone decided not to ever see a movie of his again, that's a punishment?

well, since the actor already got paid, hardly. And then think about the poor production company.

In neither of those cases did the people undermine their rights... they USED them! Maybe they used their rights so in the future there would be a change in rights, but they still utilized their rights. A vote to eliminate the vote is still using your rights (not undermining them). To underrmine your rights, the action must weaken the foundation of use. It's silly to say that the 'use (the action) weakens the foundation of use', because you are using it (using weakens using?). The foundation may be weakened later by those in power, but it is not done so simply by the act of voting (exercising your right). Furthermore undermining usually applies to clandestine attempts to weaken. Voting openly does not apply.

What? So voting for a man who says democracy is bad is not undermining your democratic rights because..you voted now and the guy cancels democracy later? I know you want to become a lawyer, but this is worse than Clinton's "what is is" bit, much worse.

[Kuciwalker]

Man, are you being thick or what? Pressure implies the application of some type of force. Unless you are a mental invalid, or under some sort of hypnosis, stating my opinion in no way counts as a method of force, unless I implicitly or explicitly metion possible force being used in the future if you don;t get into line.

So you've been using pressure inconsistently, then.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think it silly to boycott unrelated art due to your opinion of the artists.

Perhaps it is, but why is that against free speech? Free speech statements can also be silly, but so what?

It shjould be plainly obvious why an individual is NOT the same as a corporation.

In terms of boycots? Not really.

Pressure implies the application of some type of force.

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.

So voting for a man who says democracy is bad is not undermining your democratic rights because..you voted now and the guy cancels democracy later?

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.