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

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
What a joke. Of course the typical rightwingers are going to agree with Ming. That makes them just as irrational.

Yep... you continue to use insults as your primary form of discussion... shows that you have really lost this one.

It's a waste of time to continue discussing this issue with you, because you obviously don't understand what's already been said, and all you do is repeat the same ole lines. And when people disagree with you, you insult them and look down your nose at them, and dismiss what they say without even listening...

And you wonder why nobody wants to continue...

[Agathon]

Whatever... just because you chickened out.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Are we to take your avatar as your aspiration of intellectual and academic standing?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
Whatever... just because you chickened out.

Nahhh... maybe if you were willing to have a real discussion, I would continue. My points have been made already... and I see no reason to add anything.

All you add is the same ole... and insult people.

Let us know when you really want to "discuss" the topic.

[Gibsie]

Two posts in a row with no wink smiley? You've got him on the run, Agathon!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
What a joke. Of course the typical rightwingers are going to agree with Ming. That makes them just as irrational.

Would anyone else like to continue the argument since Ming has bailed?

I repeat: it is one thing to boycott Shell Oil because the company is killing Nigerians, and another to boycott Shell Oil because their CEO expresses a political preference for George Bush. In the first case the aim is to prevent the company from doing something that you think is wrong. In the second case the aim is to prevent someone saying something you think is wrong.

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.

The first kind are justifiable boycotts, the second kind are an odious attempt to prevent free political expression.

On the flip side, if you invest or spend money only with earthy-crunchy hippie-dippy animal friendly leftist businesses or products, why aren't you then effectively engaging in an "odious attempt to prevent free political expression?" You're still choosing to spend money and apply economic power where you want based on ideological preferences. I know that's probably a shocking concept out there "left of Lenin" but in the regular universe, it's a pretty standard concept. You spend or invest your money where you want, based on whatever criteria you want, end of story.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Agathon
What a joke. Of course the typical rightwingers are going to agree with Ming. That makes them just as irrational.

Would anyone else like to continue the argument since Ming has bailed?

I repeat: it is one thing to boycott Shell Oil because the company is killing Nigerians, and another to boycott Shell Oil because their CEO expresses a political preference for George Bush. In the first case the aim is to prevent the company from doing something that you think is wrong. In the second case the aim is to prevent someone saying something you think is wrong.

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.

The first kind are justifiable boycotts, the second kind are an odious attempt to prevent free political expression.

Nonsense. The aim in the second cases is to withdraw your financial support for something one disagrees with not to prevent their ability to speak as they like.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


On the flip side, if you invest or spend money only with earthy-crunchy hippie-dippy animal friendly leftist businesses or products, why aren't you then effectively engaging in an "odious attempt to prevent free political expression?" You're still choosing to spend money and apply economic power where you want based on ideological preferences. I know that's probably a shocking concept out there "left of Lenin" but in the regular universe, it's a pretty standard concept. You spend or invest your money where you want, based on whatever criteria you want, end of story.

In defense of Aggie, he does allow for boycotts just doesn't think that ones specifically targetted to political speak is a justified use of them.

So in the example you gave MTG, the earthy-crunchy hippie-dippie products may have an evnironmental benefit that he could claim as a reason to use them over the capitalistic earth killing, neo-nazi, corporatist scumbag product alternatives.

The point I made earlier tho' regarding boycotts is that they are not punative as that assumes the company/person/entity is entitled to ongoing rewards of you buying their product. This is clearly not the case. Any future sales are based upon merit of the product and included in that is the merit of the supplier being offered and does go to your point that the decision to invest in that product is based upon your discretion only. This is completely different than say incarceration, damaging property, threat to life and limb as these are real and true damages.

I find it interesting that there is no mention of indivdual accountability in the actions of the supplier. Were we to use the Linda Ronstadt example she as a supplier of entertainment must know that her product is not simply her music but her presentation. To offer a displeasing presentation is to offer an inferior product.

To use the example of the Shell CEO, his mission is to convey the best possible image to his investors and act as a salesman to the market. If by choosing to engage in political discourse this causes a negative impression of the company and/or cause lost sales he should be held responsible.


Further, and this goes to the heart of your and Ming's points, to hold the gerneral public to continue to have to purchase these products if they wish not to is a larger infringment on many peoples rights to free speach.

To have free speach is and should be guaranteed, to have tact and civility should be encouraged else one should pay the personal consequences of social stigma.

Interesting concept civility and tact during discourse.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yeah, **** that noise.

[Agathon]

Are we to take your avatar as your aspiration of intellectual and academic standing?

Are we to take yours.

Further, and this goes to the heart of your and Ming's points, to hold the gerneral public to continue to have to purchase these products if they wish not to is a larger infringment on many peoples rights to free speach.

Thanks Ogie. You are the only person who seems to understand that I don't want to outlaw boycotts. I just don't want to see them used to prevent people expressing their political opinion - especially when there are other options available that don't create this problem. If I've gotten mad in this thread, it is from having to repeat that over and over again.

If by choosing to engage in political discourse this causes a negative impression of the company and/or cause lost sales he should be held responsible.

That's part of my point. I think we as a society should be mature enough to separate someone's employment from their personal politics and to accept that someone's support of a mainstream political party isn't really relevant to the worth of their products. After all, none of us would like to be discriminated against in this way, and if we can accept each others' difference and save resolution of our political differences for the ballot, without trying to threaten anyone into silence, I think it would be a better world.

The point I made earlier tho' regarding boycotts is that they are not punative as that assumes the company/person/entity is entitled to ongoing rewards of you buying their product. This is clearly not the case.

I agree with you that the person is not simply entitled to your custom. My point is that it would be better from a free speech perspective if we chose not to make our buying decisions this way, since people could speak freely without fear.

Let me say that it's not a left/right issue. I find it just as odious when my side does it (and they do).

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Agathon
Are we to take yours.

Sure, 156 IQ, Doctorate, market value of $300 an hour just to hear my opinions, no one would pay you that much for yours. I do not even have to dress nice or cut my hair to make good impressions.

I think we as a society should be mature enough to separate someone's employment from their personal politics and to accept that someone's support of a mainstream political party isn't really relevant to the worth of their products.

Total BS, particularly when a principal component of their product/service, as it is with arteests, is their image, of which their politics is a part. Take the whole package as it is, without comparmetalizing the warts.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Agathon


That's part of my point. I think we as a society should be mature enough to separate someone's employment from their personal politics and to accept that someone's support of a mainstream political party isn't really relevant to the worth of their products. After all, none of us would like to be discriminated against in this way, and if we can accept each others' difference and save resolution of our political differences for the ballot, without trying to threaten anyone into silence, I think it would be a better world.

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.

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.


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. 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.

I agree with you that the person is not simply entitled to your custom. My point is that it would be better from a free speech perspective if we chose not to make our buying decisions this way, since people could speak freely without fear.

Let me say that it's not a left/right issue. I find it just as odious when my side does it (and they do).

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

People here have tried to make the arguement that boycottting is an opportunity for others to utilize their right to free speach in reaction to a voiced issue. It would be nigh impossible IMO to segregate political ideas from others.

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.

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?

[Ming]

Ogie Oglethorpe

Well put...

And Lefty, $300 an hour... I'm impressed, I only bill at $250 an hour.

[Arrian]

Dude, MarkG (the hairy) must be RICH! You heard it here, folks, Apolyton Chief Minion paid $250/hr!



-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by Arrian
Dude, MarkG (the hairy) must be RICH! You heard it here, folks, Apolyton Chief Minion paid $250/hr!



-Arrian

Apolyton gets me for cheap, since I'm a free volunteer here. So whenever I post on marketing and advertising, you guys are getting a good deal