Quote Originally Posted by Lemur View Post
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.

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