Secondary Boycotts

How dumb is this stuff?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/04/me...h-off-the-air/

http://volokh.com/2012/05/03/seconda...civil-society/

Basically in a normal boycott, a company has an objectionable practice you don't like (dumping toxic waste or something) and you stop buying from them, and convince others to stop too. In a secondary boycott some public speaker or organization has a political belief you don't like or they say something offensive, and so you boycott all the companies that advertise on their show. I can't decide if the people doing this stuff are really that petty or if they are just boycotting "to be involved" like you get with a lot of political stuff. Either way we should grow up and let people say things we hate without trying to kick them off the air.

Just goes to show that the populace and the media itself are of far more concern to anyone worried about free speech/level of debate in our country than government laws or money in politics.

It's really too bad. For awhile I thought it was just smut peddler, shock jock DJs like Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony whining about this stuff because of how it affected their radio shows, but it really is more serious than that. It's ruining comedy as well. Gilbert Gottfried and Tracy Morgan are comedians, they shouldn't have to apologize for telling jokes.

The media are slaves to the corporations who are slaves to the masses that are fed by the media :dizzy2:

You're exactly right that this is much more worrying than even the FCC/government stifling. Insurance companies basically dictate how you have to live your life. You like smoking and eating junk? Then you're priced out of any coverage that every responsible person requires. Much more drastic than any government regulation/laws/tax. Some freedom :rolleyes:

These groups will end up soon with too much power over who can say what but how can it be stopped? I think we're going to have to live with this going on forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

How dumb is this stuff?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/04/me...h-off-the-air/

http://volokh.com/2012/05/03/seconda...civil-society/

Basically in a normal boycott, a company has an objectionable practice you don't like (dumping toxic waste or something) and you stop buying from them, and convince others to stop too. In a secondary boycott some public speaker or organization has a political belief you don't like or they say something offensive, and so you boycott all the companies that advertise on their show. I can't decide if the people doing this stuff are really that petty or if they are just boycotting "to be involved" like you get with a lot of political stuff. Either way we should grow up and let people say things we hate without trying to kick them off the air.

Just goes to show that the populace and the media itself are of far more concern to anyone worried about free speech/level of debate in our country than government laws or money in politics.

---

You are presenting a false dichotomy here. I don't think there is one "main" threat to free speech. The funny thing about boycotts is that people lose interest sooner or later and advertisers come back after everything has died down. You can't say the same about government laws or money in politics.

I came here thinking this was about Marine Le Pen.

Anyhooo....

Government laws is one way to suppress free speech. Social norms another. People like John Stuart Mill argues that the latter form is worse and more dangerous than government regulations. I tend to agree with him in this.

Such a boycott is aimed at suppressing another persons freedom of expression, by inflicting financial damage to silence him. Following the harm principle, liberty cannot be used to suppress another persons liberty, and do this kind of boycott is wrong.

The solution? Certainly not government regulation, as that would be impossible to implement without collaterall damage. No, the answer lies in Jens Stoltenberg words of "more democracy, more openness". We must educate ourselves to have more respect for opinions which differ from our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

These groups will end up soon with too much power over who can say what but how can it be stopped? I think we're going to have to live with this going on forever.

---

I'm hopeful that this kind of thing will jump the shark. They tend to blow things way out of proportion, and they keep going from cause to cause, I think eventually people are going to learn to ignore it. Most do already probably, so I guess I mean they'll learn to mock it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You are presenting a false dichotomy here. I don't think there is one "main" threat to free speech. The funny thing about boycotts is that people lose interest sooner or later and advertisers come back after everything has died down. You can't say the same about government laws or money in politics.

---

I stuck that bit in because you said it was one of the biggest threats. But look at it: government law frees up corporate money in politics (good decision I think, but that's no matter). Corporation (or union or whatever) buys ads. That's all minimal compared to the fact that the media coverage has a good chance of being poor, that the "experts" they call in come from ideological groups whose answers are completely predictable, and the politics junkies eat it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The solution? Certainly not government regulation, as that would be impossible to implement without collaterall damage. No, the answer lies in Jens Stoltenberg words of "more democracy, more openness". We must educate ourselves to have more respect for opinions which differ from our own.

---

More respect for other opinions, and more shame at petty attempts to shut them up.

I'm not christian, so I'm not that big on shame...

Anyhoo, that doctrine would need a major clarification, or otherwise it would be hijacked by those who wants to silence others, those who are the problem to begin with. Fascist(and I use the term fascist in the widest sense) rethoric states that those who offer differing opinions are trying to silence the fascist opinion - this cannot be allowed. For plenty of examples on this, try gates of vienna.

A defence against petty attacks cannot be allowed to be turned into a defence against all attacks.



It's late, so you'll have to excuse me if this isn't formulated as well as it should be. If something isn't perfectly clear then I apologize in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'm not christian, so I'm not that big on shame...

Anyhoo, that doctrine would need a major clarification, or otherwise it would be hijacked by those who wants to silence others, those who are the problem to begin with. Fascist(and I use the term fascist in the widest sense) rethoric states that those who offer differing opinions are trying to silence the fascist opinion - this cannot be allowed. For plenty of examples on this, try gates of vienna.

A defence against petty attacks cannot be allowed to be turned into a defence against all attacks.



It's late, so you'll have to excuse me if this isn't formulated as well as it should be. If something isn't perfectly clear then I apologize in advance.

---

Yes sorry, I'm not objecting to a verbal attack over a petty issue. I'm not sure what the word I'm looking for is, but I can't imagine sitting around listing to rush limbaugh, noting down the companies running ads on his show, and then calling them up to ask them to stop, on account of him calling some fluke lady a slut...vindictively petty maybe?

Shame is a vital emotion for humans. Some people like to focus just on people who are shamed for stupid reasons, I don't know why they focus like that, but it's misleading. Shame and conscience are practically synonymous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I stuck that bit in because you said it was one of the biggest threats. But look at it: government law frees up corporate money in politics (good decision I think, but that's no matter). Corporation (or union or whatever) buys ads. That's all minimal compared to the fact that the media coverage has a good chance of being poor, that the "experts" they call in come from ideological groups whose answers are completely predictable, and the politics junkies eat it up.

---

I agree that we have ourselves a terrible media-citizen relationship going on here. But this is all due to individual failings on the country wide scale. I hate the money in politics buying elections through mass ad campaigns not because I hate seeing the ads or because that the ads are deceptive, but because people are dumb enough to buy into them.

CNN only does what it does for viewers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Insurance companies basically dictate how you have to live your life. You like smoking and eating junk? Then you're priced out of any coverage that every responsible person requires. Much more drastic than any government regulation/laws/tax. Some freedom :rolleyes:

These groups will end up soon with too much power over who can say what but how can it be stopped? I think we're going to have to live with this going on forever.

---

Being a child is expecting to do what one wants with no consequences.
Being an adult one has to accept that actions have consequences.

So you are free to do as you wish and deal with the consequences, one of which is expensive coverage as one's relative risk of morbidity and mortality is massively increased. Unless you think others should subsidise you then deal with it.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Being a child is expecting to do what one wants with no consequences.

---

When I was a child I expected to be punished for eating too many sweets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

When I was a child I expected to be punished for eating too many sweets

---

When I was a child, I ate too many sweets and got sick and my mother was "I warned you and explained to you this would happen, serves you right". Then I never ate too many sweets again.

When I was a child and I ate to many sweets, I ate more sweets. Even that couldn't fill the cold void left by my absentee parents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

[G]overnment law frees up corporate money in politics (good decision I think, but that's no matter).

---

That's a whole 'nother thread right there. I think I'll side with Montana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So you are free to do as you wish and deal with the consequences, one of which is expensive coverage as one's relative risk of morbidity and mortality is massively increased. Unless you think others should subsidise you then deal with it.

---

Yup, like it or not, citizens have latched onto secondary boycotts as a way of pressuring paid speech (not free speech). Sometimes it works, most often it doesn't. Kinda like most political/social initiatives. Curious for your reasoning as to why secondary boycotts are particularly bad, though.

-edit-

Does anyone actually have a "right" to commercial sponsorship and mass transmission of their speech? Does that right supersede the right of other citizens to put pressure on them? Seems like a case of speech vs. speech to this lemur. If a Million Moms want to propose a boycott of JC Penney for having Ellen as a spokeswoman, should they be barred from this activity? Should they not be allowed to spout off however they please? Should JC Penney be barred from responding?

The law is a blunt instrument. I get that you don't like secondary boycotts, but I don't see what you're proposing. Clarify, perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That's a whole 'nother thread right there. I think I'll side with Montana.

Yup, like it or not, citizens have latched onto secondary boycotts as a way of pressuring paid speech (not free speech).

---

Bah. They are trying to suppress political opinions they don't like. The fact that the person is getting paid for such opinions isn't really relevant.

Quote:

---

Does anyone actually have a "right" to commercial sponsorship and mass transmission of their speech? Does that right supersede the right of other citizens to put pressure on them? Seems like a case of speech vs. speech to this lemur. If a Million Moms want to propose a boycott of JC Penney for having Ellen as a spokeswoman, should they be barred from this activity? Should they not be allowed to spout off however they please? Should JC Penney be barred from responding?

The law is a blunt instrument. I get that you don't like secondary boycotts, but I don't see what you're proposing. Clarify, perhaps?

---

Secondary boycotts aren't about speech, but about trying to prevent third parties from supporting the speech of someone you don't like. They aren't offering a different opinion, they just want to stop the original speaker from spreading his opinions.

As for the solution - greater tolerance of other's opinions.

And of course, Citizens United was as great decision. Just because people group up and form a corporation doesn't mean the government can restrict their speech.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And of course, Citizens United was as great decision. Just because people group up and form a corporation doesn't mean the government can restrict their speech.

---

Sure it does, because the corporation doesn't represent a goal in and of itself for the public interest. A corporation is out for money, nothing more and nothing less. Non profits are ok, because they are not out for themselves, they are advocating for some sort of change that they think will benefit a segment or the whole of society.

It's funny because having Big Business allowed a voice in our government has led to everything the right-wing hates, which is government intrusion in the economy. Who do you think lobbies for such monopolistic and complex regulations to protect the status quo and punish small business and start ups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Sure it does, because the corporation doesn't represent a goal in and of itself for the public interest. A corporation is out for money, nothing more and nothing less.

---

That does not excuse government censorship of political opinions. How can that reasoning allow the government from legally preventing someone from stating their opinion? The government has absolutely no place in determining what represents the public interest and censoring those it deems unworthy.

Also, before citizens united non-profits were censored.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

That does not excuse government censorship of political opinions.

---

Well they are not exactly political opinions. They are business decisions. There seems to be something different intuitively between a citizen who is asking for what is his, such as senior citizens who feel that cutting social security is taking away money that they have paid into which they are entitled to. And a corporation who is asking for what it wants to be "his". Because of course, there is no such thing as entitlements in the free market. You must compete or die, but corporate lobbying exists solely for the big government guaranteeing advantages which confer guaranteed market share, which is most definitely not belonging to anyone but those that provide the best product/service, theoretically.

Quote:

---

How can that reasoning allow the government from legally preventing someone from stating their opinion?

---

I don't believe this is exactly cutting away a company's voice really. A company would still be allowed to share it's opinion in the marketplace of ideas, and individuals, such as individuals who work for the company and would like their company to succeed, can work to promote the message. But the practicality of what we have today is a system which we all agree is broken, which isn't listening to the public either left or right. Congressional approval is hitting all time lows. It is no secret that the majority of time that candidates use while on the campaign trail is not really the interacting with public part, but the fundraisers and the networking and the backroom promises.

Under no circumstances would I say that companies would not be able to publish a statement in say...the New York Times. Take for example the SOPA bill. It is perfectly acceptable for tech companies to make a statement to the public about the bill. What is not acceptable is the Congressmen/women from Hollywood (not surprising) leading the charge to shove the big government bill down everyone's throats because of the interests they are representing. Do you agree that SOPA was a disgusting bill? I guess I should have asked that first before assuming.

Quote:

---

The government has absolutely no place in determining what represents the public interest and censoring those it deems unworthy.

---

But they wouldn't be determining anything. It is already determined under tax code. "For profit" and "non profit" fall under strict guidelines from the IRS and it is easy see that "for profits" are always going to be arguing for action not on behalf of some idea of right and wrong but on behalf of profit. Non profits I have said as before, are ok in my book.

Quote:

---

Also, before citizens united non-profits were censored.

---

Well, then that is one part of the decision I would agree with. I just feel that it is obviously naive to have entities which have lots of money, in a system where whoever has the most money has the loudest voice, are allowed to dispense as much of it as they want, and their mission statement is very clear from the get-go. More money, more money, more money. Doesn't matter if we get big government intruding on everyone's privacy, piracy is hurting our profits. Doesn't matter if free market innovation is killed by draconian regulations, it secures our dominating place in the market, and makes us more money. It just seems like common sense that this is where we must leave our idealism behind and concede that the world is not going to operate as how we hope it would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And of course, Citizens United was as great decision. Just because people group up and form a corporation doesn't mean the government can restrict their speech.

---

By its own reasoning and logic, Citizens United appears to be a failure. Quite a lot of the language in the decision was about perception and appearances, generally saying that corporate cash could not and would not create an "appearance" of corruption. From the decision: "[T]he appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy." Independent spending, according to the decision, does "not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" and "influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt."

Contrast and compare with Buckley v. Valeo (1976): "Congress could legitimately conclude that the avoidance of the appearance of improper influence 'is also critical if confidence in the system of representative Government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent.' " Also compare with Nixon v. Shrink Missouri (2000): "Leave the perception of impropriety unanswered, and the cynical assumption that large donors call the tune could jeopardize the willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance."

You start to see what a radical break Citizens United is.

Corporations are not persons. Non-profits are not persons. Among other qualities, they cannot be executed by the State of Texas.

I have no doubt Citizens United will be overturned. The only question is when.

-edit-

Getting back to the OP, the latest attempt at a secondary boycott has epically failed to silence a comedian, or even get one of his sponsors to roll over. This argues against the notion that small pressure groups are not about to rule our lives with censorship and chronic lack of freedoms. Clearly, the secondary boycott thing can work if there is a groundswell of outrage and support. Otherwise? Not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

These groups will end up soon with too much power over who can say what but how can it be stopped? I think we're going to have to live with this going on forever.

---

As I said, only if conditions are correct. If enough people get sufficiently angry this tactic can work. But as the Million Moms (who are actually 47 moms, there's a joke in there somewhere) and now Donahue's Catholic League demonstrated, small pressure groups will find this ineffective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

You start to see what a radical break Citizens United is.

Corporations are not persons. Non-profits are not persons. Among other qualities, they cannot be executed by the State of Texas.

---

I think you were making a Texas joke and I don't mean to be a smartass but yes, corporations are treated like persons in more than one way: Taxes, debts, intelligence oversight (Church-Pike sort of stuff).

Quote:

---

Corporations are not persons. Non-profits are not persons. Among other qualities, they cannot be executed by the State of Texas.

---

Sounds more like a challenge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I don't mean to be a smartass

---

Then why hang out in the Backroon? That's like having a Facebook account and not posting pictures of your pets. Goes against the whole rationale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Sounds more like a challenge

---

Fair enough. I would be very interested to see Tejas find a way to convict and execute a corporation.

Quote:

---

Then why hang out in the Backroon? That's like having a Facebook account and not posting pictures of your pets. Goes against the whole rationale.

---

Wait, we're supposed to be arrogant self-important sunuvabitch's? Dang, and here I was bettering myself for nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Fair enough. I would be very interested to see Tejas find a way to convict and execute a corporation.

---

What happens to the economical assets of executed people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

What happens to the economical assets of executed people?

---

Traditionally in europe, it goes to the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

What happens to the economical assets of executed people?

---

Rich people don't get the chair, while middle class/poor people blow all their money on lawyers in appeals. :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Traditionally in europe, it goes to the state.

---

That is only if there is no family. Otherwise, it goes via the will as per normal.

You're free to do business with whomever you want. You're free to not do business with whoever you want. If you don't want to shop somewhere because they don't share your belief in leprechauns- that's your choice.

Why is there any more to it than that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You're free to do business with whomever you want. You're free to not do business with whoever you want. If you don't want to shop somewhere because they don't share your belief in leprechauns- that's your choice.

Why is there any more to it than that?

---

What do you mean? We aren't talking about whether they are legally free to do something. We're talking about how stupid this particular thing is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You're free to do business with whomever you want. You're free to not do business with whoever you want. If you don't want to shop somewhere because they don't share your belief in leprechauns- that's your choice.

Why is there any more to it than that?

---

Legally, sure.

Unfortantely, social oppression can be a bigger threath to liberty than government oppression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Legally, sure.

Unfortantely, social oppression can be a bigger threath to liberty than government oppression.

---

I'm not seeing it. The secondary boycotts against Limbaugh have completely failed in their intended purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

What do you mean? We aren't talking about whether they are legally free to do something. We're talking about how stupid this particular thing is.

---

Stupid as in pointless?

Does anyone remember when the Walk for The Cure people (a good cause, yes) said they were severing ties with Planned Parenthood (a good cause, yes?)

All the half-wit, party-line froo froo liberals I knew exploded their heads thinking about this one. The really smart ones just kept supporting both, much to the chagrin of the abortioners who somehow decided that abortion was more important than cancer, and could not comprehend that someone would willingly participate in a cancer walk organized by someone who didn't think abortion was teh bombz. Then, ya know, the whole thing died down and everyone went back to smoking pot and living in denial.