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

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You don't have to be a raging conservative to have the ability to start and run a company.

Running a company changes you.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Tuberski


We had a famous basketball player in our hospital the other day, I checked on the A/C in his room (which was fine) just so I could say I met "The Iceman".

ACK!

I don't think they were all there to repair the A/C, but that might explain why they got so upset.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by MosesPresley


I don't think they were all there to repair the A/C, but that might explain why they got so upset.

I'm hoping you know that I meant, sometimes people go just to say they went.

ACK!

[MosesPresley]

Yeah.

[Agathon]

In New Zealand, being a comedian who makes fun of the government or any politician is guaranteed to get you hired as a corporate spokesperson or entertainer.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
Maybe you should live in a country where people don't engage in childish boycotts of products because they disagree with the political views of the spokesperson.

And maybe you should live in a country where people have the freedom to make choices on the products they are spending their own money on for any reason they want

It must be tough living in a country like you do where people force you to spend money in ways you don't want to just because they want to shove their form of politics down your throat

Spokespersons are picked for ONE and ONLY ONE reason... to sell MORE PRODUCTS. Once a spokesperson fails in that single objective, it's time to dump the spokesperson. It has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with sales and profits. But if people want to continue to makes assumptions... feel free...

I still laugh at your supposed concepts of freedom of speech and about how it's all a free exchange of ideas, considering all you do is look down at people that disagree with you and insult them... you don't discuss, you preach, and insult those that don't agree. That doesn't seem like an exchange of opinions to me

[Ben Kenobi]

how can we forget the New York Times Company

I don't know.

I rather prefer that assumption that liberals are incapable of running a profitable business.

[Dis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Okay, Miller: not fired.
Whoopie: fired

Whoopie is black, that's why she was fired.

couldn't resist.

[Agathon]

And maybe you should live in a country where people have the freedom to make choices on the products they are spending their own money on for any reason they want

Really? I don't see the Canadian government preventing anyone from boycotting products they don't want to buy.

It must be tough living in a country like you do where people force you to spend money in ways you don't want to just because they want to shove their form of politics down your throat

Nice way to avoid the issue without conceding that you've already lost. From the beginning of the thread I have argued that this is a cultural problem, not a problem with rights or the law - so all your objections are irrelevant.

Spokespersons are picked for ONE and ONLY ONE reason... to sell MORE PRODUCTS. Once a spokesperson fails in that single objective, it's time to dump the spokesperson. It has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with sales and profits. But if people want to continue to makes assumptions... feel free...

Again - nice way of ignoring my actual argument.

Here's what I said:

I'm not blaming the company (although I suspect that they were doing it for political reasons), I'm blaming a culture where people would stop buying a weight loss product because the spokesperson made jokes about a political candidate.

That people would feel the need to boycott products because the spokesperson made jokes about a politician is stupid.

I'm NOT saying that we should have a law that prevents consumer boycotts: that would be unworkable. My argument is simply that the free expression of ideas is better sustained by a culture where people don't engage in such silly boycotts.

It's quite simple: it is in fact easier to express your political views if you aren't constantly afraid of being fired/boycotted/etc.

Do you deny that it is easier?

I still laugh at your supposed concepts of freedom of speech and about how it's all a free exchange of ideas, considering all you do is look down at people that disagree with you and insult them... you don't discuss, you preach, and insult those that don't agree. That doesn't seem like an exchange of opinions to me

This is a red herring and has nothing to do with the actual argument.

I don't look down at all people who disagree with me - just those who espouse a particular mindless and dogmatic form of conservatism. If I can be bothered and that's more than half the time), I usually offer some sort of argument.

And where did I say that people shouldn't be free to call Linda Ronstadt names? Sure they can. They are free to boo her comments if they wish or receive them in stony silence (which is what I would do).

I've only claimed that a free exchange of ideas is better served by a culture in which people do not automatically try to undermine someone's means of living because they disagree with them. That is the argument. If you don't agree with that specific proposition then come up with some reason why the free exchange of ideas is improved by a culture in which people have to live in fear of consumer boycotts whenever they express a political opinion.

Come up with an argument, or admit you've lost.

[Gibsie]

Prepare to be winked at

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
This is a red herring and has nothing to do with the actual argument.

Typed after you say....

That people would feel the need to boycott products because the spokesperson made jokes about a politician is stupid.

Seems relevent to me...

There is nothing wrong with people wanting to make a political statement by boycotting a product or person.
You seem to think it's wrong and dumb... but that's how they are exercising their right of free speech. You attack a culture simply because people are exercising their rights... I don't think much of a culture that thinks expressing free speech is dumb

Unlike the famous actors who can make political statements that end up in the paper, the little guy doesn't get that kind of media coverage. A boycott is a way for their opinions to be heard.

You are the one that has already lost... and aren't paying attention to the real argument here.

You just think it's stupid... great support for your ideas I'm glad our culture sees it as a reasonable political statement... instead of a culture that just considers others stupid when they disagree. When you compare the two... the culture that has the real freedom of speech is the better one, not the one that just considers insults proof of their argument

[Agathon]

Seems relevent to me...

That;s your fault, not mine.

There is nothing wrong with people wanting to make a political statement by boycotting a product or person.

There is if they want to encourage the free exchange of ideas, rather than suppressing it.

You seem to think it's wrong and dumb... but that's how they are exercising their right of free speech.

And just how is boycotting a product speaking?

You attack a culture simply because people are exercising their rights... I don't think much of a culture that thinks expressing free speech is dumb

The right to buy what you want has nothing to do with the right to free speech. They are separate issues. Most governments prevent individual people from buying automatic weapons, I don't see people complaining that this is a free speech issue, because it isn't.

Unlike the famous actors who can make political statements that end up in the paper, the little guy doesn't get that kind of media coverage. A boycott is a way for their opinions to be heard.

And the casino company is "the little guy"? There are plenty of better ways to have your voice heard than boycotts. Organizing protests outside Linda Ronstadt concerts, writing letters to the editor, starting an anti-Linda Ronstadt web sites. Many people who disagreed with Michael Moore did just this and had no problem having their opinion heard.

Your argument fails because boycotts are not the only way for people to get their opinions heard and because they have a dampening effect on free expression, which the others do not.

You are the one that has already lost... and aren't paying attention to the real argument here.

I'm not the one who is confusing the right to freedom of speech with the right to buy products in a free market. Buying is not speaking. Of course you could invent some ridiculous metaphor to try and establish that it is, but it is not. One could easily imagine a society where people were not prevented from selecting any good that was legally for sale, but where they were prevented from expressing political opinions.

You just think it's stupid... great support for your ideas

I gave reasons why it is stupid.

I'm glad our culture sees it as a reasonable political statement...

If you are for a free exchange of ideas, you must be against something that makes people less likely to engage in it.

instead of a culture that just considers others stupid when they disagree.

This is a red herring. Most of the things people say are going to be considered stupid by some people, this isn't a substantial impediment to people expressing their views.

When you compare the two... the culture that has the real freedom of speech is the better one, not the one that just considers insults proof of their argument

I gave you a simple question to answer, and you responded with bluster and avoidance. Please answer the question. In fact just answer this question - the rest is besides the point.

Here is the question again:

It's quite simple: will it in fact make it easier for people to express their political views if they do not have to live in fear of being fired/boycotted/etc. ?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
That;s your fault, not mine.

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

There is if they want to encourage the free exchange of ideas, rather than suppressing it.

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. 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... 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.

And just how is boycotting a product speaking?

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

The right to buy what you want has nothing to do with the right to free speech. They are separate issues. Most governments prevent individual people from buying automatic weapons, I don't see people complaining that this is a free speech issue, because it isn't.

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

And the casino company is "the little guy"? There are plenty of better ways to have your voice heard than boycotts. Organizing protests outside Linda Ronstadt concerts, writing letters to the editor, starting an anti-Linda Ronstadt web sites. Many people who disagreed with Michael Moore did just this and had no problem having their opinion heard.

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...

Your argument fails because boycotts are not the only way for people to get their opinions heard and because they have a dampening effect on free expression, which the others do not.

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.

I'm not the one who is confusing the right to freedom of speech with the right to buy products in a free market. Buying is not speaking. Of course you could invent some ridiculous metaphor to try and establish that it is, but it is not. One could easily imagine a society where people were not prevented from selecting any good that was legally for sale, but where they were prevented from expressing political opinions.

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

I gave reasons why it is stupid.

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

If you are for a free exchange of ideas, you must be against something that makes people less likely to engage in it.

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.

I gave you a simple question to answer, and you responded with bluster and avoidance. Please answer the question. In fact just answer this question - the rest is besides the point.

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.

It's quite simple: will it in fact make it easier for people to express their political views if they do not have to live in fear of being fired/boycotted/etc. ?

Maybe if I answer yours, you will try to have the type of discussion that you claim boycotts stop.

When you state your views, there is no law that says you are immune to how other people will except them.
Like the speaker has the right, so do the listeners...

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

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.


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.

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.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ming
It has nothing to do with politics

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

[Jaguar]

Ming owns you.