RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


interesting Supreme Court cases on boycotts/1st Amend(17 posts)

interesting Supreme Court cases on boycotts/1st AmendDougSloan
Apr 16, 2003 10:58 AM
I got curious, so I read a few cases; these two seem to address a lot of what we have been discussing here. Bottom line, boycotts usually are a form of First Amendment protected speech.

http://www.midcalracing.com/boycotts.htm

Doug
It makes sense that boycotts are protected....PdxMark
Apr 16, 2003 11:23 AM
and I think the consensus here was that they should be.

My point in those discussions was that launching a boycott over something someone says, particularly a one-off Dixie Chick statement, rather than what someone does, shows a lack of free speech appreciation by the boycotters.
el wrong amundo....ClydeTri
Apr 16, 2003 12:07 PM
two way street...you can what you want..I can buy what I want...doesnt matter if you say it once or a million times...free speech cuts both ways..you say I dont show an appreciation of their free speech rights..well, I say you dont show an appreciation of my free speech rights! Mine are equally as important as yours!
There is a difference between saying that a boycott. . .czardonic
Apr 16, 2003 12:40 PM
. . .is wrong in principle and saying it is misguided.

The first ammendment protects the ability to express, but it does not protect the expression from criticism. The Dixie Chicks are free to denounce Bush. Critics are free to denounce the Dixie Chicks for denouncing Bush. And other critics are free to denounce critics for denouncing the Dixie Chicks for denouncing Bush

I respect a persons right to boycott the Dixie Chicks. That doesn't mean I have to respect the motive for the boycott.
There is a difference between saying that a boycott. . .ClydeTri
Apr 16, 2003 12:48 PM
I think I agree with you.....hard to follow all those denoucings...got lost!
I think it became a three way street at one point. (nm)czardonic
Apr 16, 2003 12:53 PM
So, you REALLY like the music, but the musiciancycleaddict
Apr 16, 2003 12:54 PM
said something about something that was unrelated to the music and now you are going to deny yourself the enjoyment of music that previously gave you pleasure?

Too bad--YOUR loss!!!

Long live the Dixie Chicks.....
Agree wholeheartedly...nmBikeViking at home
Apr 17, 2003 8:44 AM
Intolerance and freedom of speechPdxMark
Apr 16, 2003 1:11 PM
If buying a Dixie Chicks CD is an endorsement of their politics, then boycotting them over a single political statement makes perfect sense. If buying a Dixie Chicks CD is an apolitical act, then I think boycotting them over a single statement shows an amazing intolerance toward political discourse.

Boycotters are free to be intolerant. Absolutely. You have every right to be intolerant. But I think being intolerant of political speech one disagrees with is inconsistent with supporting freedom of speech.

I'm not saying a Dixie Chick boycotter does not have the freedom to boycott them. I'm saying a Dixie Chick boycotter is hypocritical when they say they suppoort freedom of speech.
When it comes to intolerance, the devil is in the details.czardonic
Apr 16, 2003 1:38 PM
If an artist that you once respected went on a rant about racial minorities, could you continue to enjoy their music? Frankly, I don't think I could, and I guess you could say that it is because I am intolerant of racism. I still recognize their right to be a racist, but I wouldn't want to be associated with those views or contribute financially to their expression.

As long as the boycotters recognize the Dixie Chick's right to make those statements, I don't see the hypocrisy though I do see the intolerance.
does disagreement = intolerance? nmDougSloan
Apr 16, 2003 2:08 PM
does disagreement = intolerance? I don't think so...PdxMark
Apr 16, 2003 2:11 PM
But sometimes the manner/strength of expressing disagreement shows intolerance.
difference, to meDougSloan
Apr 16, 2003 2:49 PM
Disagreement is voicing your differences in legal ways.

Intolerance is threatening bodily harm to someone for something they say.

Doug
I'd say that's a uniquely extreme definition of "intolerance" nmczardonic
Apr 16, 2003 2:52 PM
just one example nmDougSloan
Apr 16, 2003 3:31 PM
When it comes to intolerance, the devil is in the details.PdxMark
Apr 16, 2003 2:10 PM
Good example. Agreed.
Intolerance and freedom of speechBikeViking at home
Apr 17, 2003 8:56 AM
If public figure(s) (like the Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandons)make political statements that are at COMPLETELY at odds with my belief system, there is NO way I am going buy their "product". The public figure has to realize that, by making such statements, people like me MAY just say NO when decidingwhether or not to purchase their "product".

It's a very personal decision...how much of their political views are you willing to indirectly subsidize with your money?

No good answer...