In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[The T]

Okay. So you are on the record that nobody is entitled to their opinion unless it is politically correct. We now live in a society that deems it proper to physically and/or materially punish those who don't think, believe, or speak what somebody else thinks they should be required to do. There is no more liberty in America to be who and what we are in peace unless we are among the well financed and powerful with sufficient clout? Is that what you are saying?

No, what I'm saying is what I said. I said

You are not entitled to be immune from public opinion, provided that the expression of that public opinion does not break some other law. Slander or libel for example.

If you disagree with that, then do so and make an argument as why I'm wrong. That's how debate works.

I've been making the argument again and again and again. And again, the issue is not public opinion or expression of public opinion. This has nothing to do with what is or is not legal though it is my opinion that denying somebody their unalienable right to be who and what they are, so long as they infringe on nobody else's rights, should be illegal. It should be illegal to punish somebody for advocating for gays or abortion rights. It should be illegal to punish somebody for advocating for traditional marriage or the rights of the unborn. It should be illegal to punish somebody for stating they think Christians are evil people or teach evil concepts. And it should be illegal to punish a Phil Robertson simply because he holds a politically incorrect opinion.

But what I think should be illegal is my personal opinion. I have no power to enforce that opinion, other than with one vote, and I have no desire to punish anybody who does not agree with me.

I would have had zero problem with GLAAD or anybody else cxriticizing Robertson for what he said. That is certainly within their right to do. That certainly would be a proper thing for them to do.

My quarrel with GLAAD is that they were not content to express their disapproval of or disagreement with what he said. They instead went after him to physically and materially punish him for what he said. And THAT is what I see as morally and ethically wrong. It isn't illegal. But it should be.

Going after ANYONE'S liberty with no standing and citing the First Amendment to make some grandiose, convoluted point is wrong. WE as citizens have the right to speak regardless as long as it gets no one physically hurt, maimed, or killed in the process. Claiming hurt feelings is NO defense. To them I say get over it. You have NO RIGHT to steal away a person's livelihood because you are angry over comments that fly against your sensibilities whatever they are. Your Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness (Property) wasn't infringed in any way...you are only butthurt by words that you should be able to rebut, or forget, and move on. Grow up.

Such children (supposedly adults) we deal with.

 

[hunarcy]

My quarrel with GLAAD is that they were not content to express their disapproval of or disagreement with what he said. They instead went after him to physically and materially punish him for what he said. And THAT is what I see as morally and ethically wrong.

Absolutely correct and well said! (I edited out the part about making it illegal because I'm not sure it should be...but, behaving that way should cause those who donate to them to reflect.)

 

[Barb]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group.

The fuck? Until the line above, and seeing as it was YOU, but I get to this and all I got is "The fuck?"

 

[Montrovant]

Okay. So you are on the record that nobody is entitled to their opinion unless it is politically correct. We now live in a society that deems it proper to physically and/or materially punish those who don't think, believe, or speak what somebody else thinks they should be required to do. There is no more liberty in America to be who and what we are in peace unless we are among the well financed and powerful with sufficient clout? Is that what you are saying?

No, what I'm saying is what I said. I said

You are not entitled to be immune from public opinion, provided that the expression of that public opinion does not break some other law. Slander or libel for example.

If you disagree with that, then do so and make an argument as why I'm wrong. That's how debate works.

I've been making the argument again and again and again. And again, the issue is not public opinion or expression of public opinion. This has nothing to do with what is or is not legal though it is my opinion that denying somebody their unalienable right to be who and what they are, so long as they infringe on nobody else's rights, should be illegal. It should be illegal to punish somebody for advocating for gays or abortion rights. It should be illegal to punish somebody for advocating for traditional marriage or the rights of the unborn. It should be illegal to punish somebody for stating they think Christians are evil people or teach evil concepts. And it should be illegal to punish a Phil Robertson simply because he holds a politically incorrect opinion.

But what I think should be illegal is my personal opinion. I have no power to enforce that opinion, other than with one vote, and I have no desire to punish anybody who does not agree with me.

I would have had zero problem with GLAAD or anybody else cxriticizing Robertson for what he said. That is certainly within their right to do. That certainly would be a proper thing for them to do.

My quarrel with GLAAD is that they were not content to express their disapproval of or disagreement with what he said. They instead went after him to physically and materially punish him for what he said. And THAT is what I see as morally and ethically wrong. It isn't illegal. But it should be.

Is calling for a boycott, or calling for a person to be taken off the air, not an expression of disapproval? Couldn't Robertson's suspension be considered an expression of disapproval by A&E (or whichever company is in charge of his employment)?

If A&E fired Robertson because they didn't like his opinions expressed in the interview, rather than pressure from GLAAD, would that also be evil, or is it only when someone other than an employer asks for it that it is evil, even though they have no direct power to make that decision?

I think my big issue with your stated opinions here are that you seem to be granting GLAAD a lot more power than they actually have. They did not fire Phil Robertson. So far as I can tell, they merely expressed their opinion that he should not have a television show and perhaps said they would organize a boycott if he continued to be part of one. A&E was under no obligation to listen to them.

And I still would like to hear what you would think of Jewish groups organizing a boycott of a television station that showed anti-semetic, Holocaust denying programming. Would that, too, be evil?

 

[Sunshine]

When I was working on my master's as part of my clinical I had to see patients in a local clinic. I had one who was homosexual and felt that his feelings for men were depravity. He asked me for therapy to change because he couldn't live with it. I discussed it with my clinical supervisor and she said he could change if he had the desire with desensitization therapy. I didn't have enough time left I clinical to do this, but I also believed that a student doing this kind of therapy could be very controversial if somehow the patient made it public.

Not everyone on the gay side of the street is comfortable with their lifestyle and not all of them believe homosexuality to be right. I have encountered many of them in clinical practice. I just had to put out their choices and let them decide if they could ever become comfortable with it. If they said they could not, then I referred them for desensitization therapy. From time to time, I think of that patient I had many years ago as a student and wonder if he ever pursued the desensitization therapy.

I also had many patients who did not feel their gender identity to be an issue in their lives. They were in just for treatment of their mental illness. Of course, a practice is called a practice, I suppose, because we are all still learning. I had some patients who were showing no improvement in their depression at the 6 month mark. Then I would learn that the issue was that they were depressed over was their homosexuality. From then on, I ascertained gender identity and whether it was a problem for the patient on the initial visit.

Perhaps gender identity is genetic. But so are many illnesses. Just because the person with such an illness is predisposed genetically to have it, we do not deny them treatment on that basis. Anyone who is uncomfortable with their sexuality has the right to be and to want to change, just as they have the right to choose a religion that does not approve.

I don't believe any person has the right to demand that a religion change its core beliefs. Islam certainly never will, but I don't see any muslims getting fired or suspended because they have stated that women are inferior and should be treated as such. Gays can sleep with whomever they choose. Likely their lifestyle will be accepted for things like SS and insurance benefits. But hey do not have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot believe.

 

[WillReadmore]

That's all it is with you is a "level playing field." You simply can't let one state have their opinion while the other has another. You gotta force that level playing field on the rest of us. Suck it up? You wish. You want a level playing field? Have one where all views are tolerated, where states can act within the bounds of the law to pass appropriate legislation. Where nobody is singled out for who or what they are.

You can't call it a "level playing field" when you force it on the populous. You want tolerance and equality? You can start by not forcing your opinion down our throats.

Yes. You are exactly right.

The same goes with slavery, racial intermarriage, discrimination on the basis of religion, etc. NO state gets to do that stuff, even if a majority wants to.

On a level playing field, nobody is forcing anything down anyone's throat. YOU get to marry whom you want. And, YOU don't have to invite them over for coffee if you don't want to.

In fact, your church can run them out the door if they show up.

 

[Sunshine]

That's all it is with you is a "level playing field." You simply can't let one state have their opinion while the other has another. You gotta force that level playing field on the rest of us. Suck it up? You wish. You want a level playing field? Have one where all views are tolerated, where states can act within the bounds of the law to pass appropriate legislation. Where nobody is singled out for who or what they are.

You can't call it a "level playing field" when you force it on the populous. You want tolerance and equality? You can start by not forcing your opinion down our throats.

Yes. You are exactly right.

The same goes with slavery, racial intermarriage, discrimination on the basis of religion, etc. NO state gets to do that stuff, even if a majority wants to.

On a level playing field, nobody is forcing anything down anyone's throat. YOU get to marry whom you want. And, YOU don't have to invite them over for coffee if you don't want to.

In fact, your church can run them out the door if they show up.

FAIL

It is not legal to suspend someone because of his religious belief.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've been making the argument again and again and again. And again, the issue is not public opinion or expression of public opinion. This has nothing to do with what is or is not legal though it is my opinion that denying somebody their unalienable right to be who and what they are, so long as they infringe on nobody else's rights, should be illegal. It should be illegal to punish somebody for advocating for gays or abortion rights. It should be illegal to punish somebody for advocating for traditional marriage or the rights of the unborn. It should be illegal to punish somebody for stating they think Christians are evil people or teach evil concepts. And it should be illegal to punish a Phil Robertson simply because he holds a politically incorrect opinion.

But what I think should be illegal is my personal opinion. I have no power to enforce that opinion, other than with one vote, and I have no desire to punish anybody who does not agree with me.

I would have had zero problem with GLAAD or anybody else cxriticizing Robertson for what he said. That is certainly within their right to do. That certainly would be a proper thing for them to do.

My quarrel with GLAAD is that they were not content to express their disapproval of or disagreement with what he said. They instead went after him to physically and materially punish him for what he said. And THAT is what I see as morally and ethically wrong. It isn't illegal. But it should be.

Is calling for a boycott, or calling for a person to be taken off the air, not an expression of disapproval? Couldn't Robertson's suspension be considered an expression of disapproval by A&E (or whichever company is in charge of his employment)?

If A&E fired Robertson because they didn't like his opinions expressed in the interview, rather than pressure from GLAAD, would that also be evil, or is it only when someone other than an employer asks for it that it is evil, even though they have no direct power to make that decision?

I think my big issue with your stated opinions here are that you seem to be granting GLAAD a lot more power than they actually have. They did not fire Phil Robertson. So far as I can tell, they merely expressed their opinion that he should not have a television show and perhaps said they would organize a boycott if he continued to be part of one. A&E was under no obligation to listen to them.

And I still would like to hear what you would think of Jewish groups organizing a boycott of a television station that showed anti-semetic, Holocaust denying programming. Would that, too, be evil?

It is more than an expression of disapproval. I have no problem with people expressing disapproval no matter what it is they disapprove of. To intentionally attempt to hurt somebody for no other reason than they expressed an opinion you don't like is as different from expressing disapproval as is striking somebody you are angry with as opposed to telling them you are angry.

As for the Jewish people I have no problem with them whatsoever personally boycotting a television station showing programming they disagree with. I would probably do the same if I thought a station was just being politically correct or historically inaccurate. I have no problem with them requesting the station to take somethng off the air. I have often written my opinion to various media sources expressing my objection to something they aired or printed. I would, however, have a HUGE problem with them threatening the producer or actors or spokespersonsor with physical/material damages such as demanding that they be fired purely because they are presenting a point of view that is offensive to the Jews or Christians or Bostonians or New Yorkers or Tiddly Wink players.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's all it is with you is a "level playing field." You simply can't let one state have their opinion while the other has another. You gotta force that level playing field on the rest of us. Suck it up? You wish. You want a level playing field? Have one where all views are tolerated, where states can act within the bounds of the law to pass appropriate legislation. Where nobody is singled out for who or what they are.

You can't call it a "level playing field" when you force it on the populous. You want tolerance and equality? You can start by not forcing your opinion down our throats.

Yes. You are exactly right.

The same goes with slavery, racial intermarriage, discrimination on the basis of religion, etc. NO state gets to do that stuff, even if a majority wants to.

On a level playing field, nobody is forcing anything down anyone's throat. YOU get to marry whom you want. And, YOU don't have to invite them over for coffee if you don't want to.

In fact, your church can run them out the door if they show up.

I'm not in the business of telling folks whom to marry, but the issue of marriage should be a states issue, not something the Federal government should be intruding into. Churches who don't want to abide by the gay marriage law can file for an exemption.

Anyhow, a 'level playing field' to you consists of forced tolerance and acceptance. I will control whom I tolerate and am intolerant to, not even the states or the Government can take that away from me.

 

[Foxfyre]

My quarrel with GLAAD is that they were not content to express their disapproval of or disagreement with what he said. They instead went after him to physically and materially punish him for what he said. And THAT is what I see as morally and ethically wrong.

Absolutely correct and well said! (I edited out the part about making it illegal because I'm not sure it should be...but, behaving that way should cause those who donate to them to reflect.)

It is fine. The part about it 'should be illegal' is purely my opinion. I haven't called for it to be made illegal. I haven't demanded anybody make it illegal. And I'm open to any argument for why it should not be made illegal. But in my opinion, it should be just as illegal to demand that somebody be physically or materially harmed purely because they express an opinion you don't like as it is illegal to strike somebody you are angry with.

Short of violating somebody else's rights, all of us should be able to express our beliefs or opinions, no matter WHAT those beliefs or opinions might be, without fear that some person, group, organization, or mob will come after us to hurt us physically and/or materially.

Again tbere is a huge difference between protesting what somebody is DOING to somebody else, and attempting to physically and/or materially hurt somebody who is just expressing an opinion about what s/he thinks or believes; i.e. being who and what s/he is.

 

[Montrovant]

Is calling for a boycott, or calling for a person to be taken off the air, not an expression of disapproval? Couldn't Robertson's suspension be considered an expression of disapproval by A&E (or whichever company is in charge of his employment)?

If A&E fired Robertson because they didn't like his opinions expressed in the interview, rather than pressure from GLAAD, would that also be evil, or is it only when someone other than an employer asks for it that it is evil, even though they have no direct power to make that decision?

I think my big issue with your stated opinions here are that you seem to be granting GLAAD a lot more power than they actually have. They did not fire Phil Robertson. So far as I can tell, they merely expressed their opinion that he should not have a television show and perhaps said they would organize a boycott if he continued to be part of one. A&E was under no obligation to listen to them.

And I still would like to hear what you would think of Jewish groups organizing a boycott of a television station that showed anti-semetic, Holocaust denying programming. Would that, too, be evil?

It is more than an expression of disapproval. I have no problem with people expressing disapproval no matter what it is they disapprove of. To intentionally attempt to hurt somebody for no other reason than they expressed an opinion you don't like is as different from expressing disapproval as is striking somebody you are angry with as opposed to telling them you are angry.

As for the Jewish people I have no problem with them whatsoever personally boycotting a television station showing programming they disagree with. I would probably do the same if I thought a station was just being politically correct or historically inaccurate. I have no problem with them requesting the station to take somethng off the air. I have often written my opinion to various media sources expressing my objection to something they aired or printed. I would, however, have a HUGE problem with them threatening the producer or actors or spokespersonsor with physical/material damages such as demanding that they be fired purely because they are presenting a point of view that is offensive to the Jews or Christians or Bostonians or New Yorkers or Tiddly Wink players.

So is it the wording that is an issue? If one makes a request, "Please remove this person from your show. If you continue to use them in the show, I will take my business elsewhere and encourage others to do the same.", is that fine?

You keep going on about demanding, physical material damages, etc. Is that not the result of any expression of disapproval of a show, if that expression leads to cancellation or suspension of particular individuals?

Or is it that you don't think a person should publicly express their opinion of another person and that they don't think they should be employed in a particular place? Or is such an expression fine so long as it is not done in an organized fashion?

Is a Facebook post saying, "Phil Robertson is a bigot! People shouldn't watch his show and I hope A&E fires him!" evil, or is it fine because it isn't an organized boycott? What if such a post is made by, say, a celebrity with many followers? Does that fall into the realm of evil, or is it still just personal expression?

Further, what if the attempt is not to hurt someone but to stop the promotion of a particular opinion? If a person feels that, by continuing to employ Robertson after these comments, A&E is giving a sort of implied support to those comments, would they be ethically in the right to try and change that? They don't want to hurt Robertson, they want to stop the implicit support of his message.

There seems to be a good deal of gray area here, which is just one reason I find your wish to see this kind of boycott/pressure made illegal disturbing. It is particularly odd to me that you seem to have no problem with A&E doing whatever they wish as far as reacting to Robertson's interview, only with GLAAD applying pressure to have him fired. Why is the one ethically right and the other not? That seems inconsistent to me.

 

[Mac1958]

Short of violating somebody else's rights, all of us should be able to express our beliefs or opinions, no matter WHAT those beliefs or opinions might be, without fear that some person, group, organization, or mob will come after us to hurt us physically and/or materially.

Again tbere is a huge difference between protesting what somebody is DOING to somebody else, and attempting to physically and/or materially hurt somebody who is just expressing an opinion about what s/he thinks or believes; i.e. being who and what s/he is.

The problem is, zealots believe that the end always justify the means.

There's no reasoning with them.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is more than an expression of disapproval. I have no problem with people expressing disapproval no matter what it is they disapprove of. To intentionally attempt to hurt somebody for no other reason than they expressed an opinion you don't like is as different from expressing disapproval as is striking somebody you are angry with as opposed to telling them you are angry.

As for the Jewish people I have no problem with them whatsoever personally boycotting a television station showing programming they disagree with. I would probably do the same if I thought a station was just being politically correct or historically inaccurate. I have no problem with them requesting the station to take somethng off the air. I have often written my opinion to various media sources expressing my objection to something they aired or printed. I would, however, have a HUGE problem with them threatening the producer or actors or spokespersonsor with physical/material damages such as demanding that they be fired purely because they are presenting a point of view that is offensive to the Jews or Christians or Bostonians or New Yorkers or Tiddly Wink players.

So is it the wording that is an issue? If one makes a request, "Please remove this person from your show. If you continue to use them in the show, I will take my business elsewhere and encourage others to do the same.", is that fine?

You keep going on about demanding, physical material damages, etc. Is that not the result of any expression of disapproval of a show, if that expression leads to cancellation or suspension of particular individuals?

Or is it that you don't think a person should publicly express their opinion of another person and that they don't think they should be employed in a particular place? Or is such an expression fine so long as it is not done in an organized fashion?

Is a Facebook post saying, "Phil Robertson is a bigot! People shouldn't watch his show and I hope A&E fires him!" evil, or is it fine because it isn't an organized boycott? What if such a post is made by, say, a celebrity with many followers? Does that fall into the realm of evil, or is it still just personal expression?

Further, what if the attempt is not to hurt someone but to stop the promotion of a particular opinion? If a person feels that, by continuing to employ Robertson after these comments, A&E is giving a sort of implied support to those comments, would they be ethically in the right to try and change that? They don't want to hurt Robertson, they want to stop the implicit support of his message.

There seems to be a good deal of gray area here, which is just one reason I find your wish to see this kind of boycott/pressure made illegal disturbing. It is particularly odd to me that you seem to have no problem with A&E doing whatever they wish as far as reacting to Robertson's interview, only with GLAAD applying pressure to have him fired. Why is the one ethically right and the other not? That seems inconsistent to me.

'Please remove someone from your show' is in my opinion still petty, small minded, and selfish, but it is NOT the same thing as demanding that somebody be fired or else. GLAAD went after A&E with demands that they fire Phil Robertson or else. That is very different from writing the station and telling them that you were offended by whatever and if it continues along those lines you won't be watching. The first request is hateful, vindictive, punishing. The second is advising the station of your personal position on an issue but leaving it to them to change it, correct it, or whatever.

And I'm sorry that you find my point of view disturbing because I find any OTHER point of view disturbing. I think it is wrong, unAmerican, and evil to presume to physically and/or materially punish a person for no other reason than they expressed an opinion that you don't share. I see little difference between that and striking or otherwise injuring a person you are angry with as opposed to just telling them off.

 

[hunarcy]

The problem is, zealots believe that the end always justify the means.

There's no reasoning with them.

.

True. That's why we shouldn't tolerate THEIR intolerance either.

 

[Montrovant]

My quarrel with GLAAD is that they were not content to express their disapproval of or disagreement with what he said. They instead went after him to physically and materially punish him for what he said. And THAT is what I see as morally and ethically wrong.

Absolutely correct and well said! (I edited out the part about making it illegal because I'm not sure it should be...but, behaving that way should cause those who donate to them to reflect.)

It is fine. The part about it 'should be illegal' is purely my opinion. I haven't called for it to be made illegal. I haven't demanded anybody make it illegal. And I'm open to any argument for why it should not be made illegal. But in my opinion, it should be just as illegal to demand that somebody be physically or materially harmed purely because they express an opinion you don't like as it is illegal to strike somebody you are angry with.

Short of violating somebody else's rights, all of us should be able to express our beliefs or opinions, no matter WHAT those beliefs or opinions might be, without fear that some person, group, organization, or mob will come after us to hurt us physically and/or materially.

Again tbere is a huge difference between protesting what somebody is DOING to somebody else, and attempting to physically and/or materially hurt somebody who is just expressing an opinion about what s/he thinks or believes; i.e. being who and what s/he is.

You just equated physical assault with making a demand that has no authority.

Again, someone can demand all they like, they can organize whatever boycotts they want, but no company is under any obligation to listen to them. More, anyone is free to organize their own counter-campaign to get people to buy/watch the product instead. You want to make a perfectly legal action illegal if done in an organized manner. You're skipping right past regulation or restriction, which might have a good argument for it, directly into completely suppressing speech.

Really, what is a boycott? Some people tell other people not to buy or watch something. They may make signs, put up ads, make a website, whatever, but there is nothing that says anyone has to listen to them or that any company has to do what they want.

You are saying we should all be able to express our opinion, unless that opinion is that people shouldn't watch a show or buy a product. Worse, you are saying that only applies in certain, hard to determine circumstances. You are saying that people cannot organize to promote a message you disapprove of and you think that should be codified into law. I realize that people can be hurt by boycotts.....but unless you think people should be compelled to buy or watch certain products that is an unavoidable consequence of some of our freedoms.

Basically your argument seems to be that it's ok to say, "I think so-and-so should be fired because of their opinion." but that it is terribly wrong to say, "We think so-and-so should be fired because of their opinion.". And in neither case is anyone saying that actually doing the firing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Absolutely correct and well said! (I edited out the part about making it illegal because I'm not sure it should be...but, behaving that way should cause those who donate to them to reflect.)

It is fine. The part about it 'should be illegal' is purely my opinion. I haven't called for it to be made illegal. I haven't demanded anybody make it illegal. And I'm open to any argument for why it should not be made illegal. But in my opinion, it should be just as illegal to demand that somebody be physically or materially harmed purely because they express an opinion you don't like as it is illegal to strike somebody you are angry with.

Short of violating somebody else's rights, all of us should be able to express our beliefs or opinions, no matter WHAT those beliefs or opinions might be, without fear that some person, group, organization, or mob will come after us to hurt us physically and/or materially.

Again tbere is a huge difference between protesting what somebody is DOING to somebody else, and attempting to physically and/or materially hurt somebody who is just expressing an opinion about what s/he thinks or believes; i.e. being who and what s/he is.

You just equated physical assault with making a demand that has no authority.

Again, someone can demand all they like, they can organize whatever boycotts they want, but no company is under any obligation to listen to them. More, anyone is free to organize their own counter-campaign to get people to buy/watch the product instead. You want to make a perfectly legal action illegal if done in an organized manner. You're skipping right past regulation or restriction, which might have a good argument for it, directly into completely suppressing speech.

Really, what is a boycott? Some people tell other people not to buy or watch something. They may make signs, put up ads, make a website, whatever, but there is nothing that says anyone has to listen to them or that any company has to do what they want.

You are saying we should all be able to express our opinion, unless that opinion is that people shouldn't watch a show or buy a product. Worse, you are saying that only applies in certain, hard to determine circumstances. You are saying that people cannot organize to promote a message you disapprove of and you think that should be codified into law. I realize that people can be hurt by boycotts.....but unless you think people should be compelled to buy or watch certain products that is an unavoidable consequence of some of our freedoms.

Basically your argument seems to be that it's ok to say, "I think so-and-so should be fired because of their opinion." but that it is terribly wrong to say, "We think so-and-so should be fired because of their opinion.". And in neither case is anyone saying that actually doing the firing.

No. Threats of lawsuit and other actions by a well funded and powerful organization like GLAAD does not constitute a demand with no authority. If I personally make such a demand, true. No authority. It would make me something of an asshole but it would do no harm. With an organization like GLAAD with considerable resources available to it, including a friendly media, it is a real threat. Which is why I have been careful to say that we should be able to state our beliefs and opinions without fear that some GROUP, MOB, or ORGANIZATION will come down on us to punish us physically and/or materially. No individual has such power.

 

[hunarcy]

And in neither case is anyone saying that actually doing the firing.

Her argument is more "call for a boycott if you want, but don't declare a jihad", which is what GLAAD seemed to be doing as they researched Robertson to ensure they stopped him from being heard.

 

[Montrovant]

So is it the wording that is an issue? If one makes a request, "Please remove this person from your show. If you continue to use them in the show, I will take my business elsewhere and encourage others to do the same.", is that fine?

You keep going on about demanding, physical material damages, etc. Is that not the result of any expression of disapproval of a show, if that expression leads to cancellation or suspension of particular individuals?

Or is it that you don't think a person should publicly express their opinion of another person and that they don't think they should be employed in a particular place? Or is such an expression fine so long as it is not done in an organized fashion?

Is a Facebook post saying, "Phil Robertson is a bigot! People shouldn't watch his show and I hope A&E fires him!" evil, or is it fine because it isn't an organized boycott? What if such a post is made by, say, a celebrity with many followers? Does that fall into the realm of evil, or is it still just personal expression?

Further, what if the attempt is not to hurt someone but to stop the promotion of a particular opinion? If a person feels that, by continuing to employ Robertson after these comments, A&E is giving a sort of implied support to those comments, would they be ethically in the right to try and change that? They don't want to hurt Robertson, they want to stop the implicit support of his message.

There seems to be a good deal of gray area here, which is just one reason I find your wish to see this kind of boycott/pressure made illegal disturbing. It is particularly odd to me that you seem to have no problem with A&E doing whatever they wish as far as reacting to Robertson's interview, only with GLAAD applying pressure to have him fired. Why is the one ethically right and the other not? That seems inconsistent to me.

'Please remove someone from your show' is in my opinion still petty, small minded, and selfish, but it is NOT the same thing as demanding that somebody be fired or else. GLAAD went after A&E with demands that they fire Phil Robertson or else. That is very different from writing the station and telling them that you were offended by whatever and if it continues along those lines you won't be watching. The first request is hateful, vindictive, punishing. The second is advising the station of your personal position on an issue but leaving it to them to change it, correct it, or whatever.

And I'm sorry that you find my point of view disturbing because I find any OTHER point of view disturbing. I think it is wrong, unAmerican, and evil to presume to physically and/or materially punish a person for no other reason than they expressed an opinion that you don't share. I see little difference between that and striking or otherwise injuring a person you are angry with as opposed to just telling them off.

I'm fine with finding it morally or ethically wrong to make those kinds of demands. What I think would be 'unAmerican' would be making it illegal, thereby suppressing someone's speech because you disagree with their opinion (in this case, their opinion that Robertson should be fired).

Oh, and in both of your example the station is left to change, correct, or whatever. Just because GLAAD demands something doesn't mean the station needs to comply. In both cases someone is voicing their displeasure and desire for change in A&E. An individual can just as easily say they want someone fired 'or else', and an individual can also attempt to sway others to that opinion. Should it be illegal for an individual to do the same as a group?

 

[Montrovant]

It is fine. The part about it 'should be illegal' is purely my opinion. I haven't called for it to be made illegal. I haven't demanded anybody make it illegal. And I'm open to any argument for why it should not be made illegal. But in my opinion, it should be just as illegal to demand that somebody be physically or materially harmed purely because they express an opinion you don't like as it is illegal to strike somebody you are angry with.

Short of violating somebody else's rights, all of us should be able to express our beliefs or opinions, no matter WHAT those beliefs or opinions might be, without fear that some person, group, organization, or mob will come after us to hurt us physically and/or materially.

Again tbere is a huge difference between protesting what somebody is DOING to somebody else, and attempting to physically and/or materially hurt somebody who is just expressing an opinion about what s/he thinks or believes; i.e. being who and what s/he is.

You just equated physical assault with making a demand that has no authority.

Again, someone can demand all they like, they can organize whatever boycotts they want, but no company is under any obligation to listen to them. More, anyone is free to organize their own counter-campaign to get people to buy/watch the product instead. You want to make a perfectly legal action illegal if done in an organized manner. You're skipping right past regulation or restriction, which might have a good argument for it, directly into completely suppressing speech.

Really, what is a boycott? Some people tell other people not to buy or watch something. They may make signs, put up ads, make a website, whatever, but there is nothing that says anyone has to listen to them or that any company has to do what they want.

You are saying we should all be able to express our opinion, unless that opinion is that people shouldn't watch a show or buy a product. Worse, you are saying that only applies in certain, hard to determine circumstances. You are saying that people cannot organize to promote a message you disapprove of and you think that should be codified into law. I realize that people can be hurt by boycotts.....but unless you think people should be compelled to buy or watch certain products that is an unavoidable consequence of some of our freedoms.

Basically your argument seems to be that it's ok to say, "I think so-and-so should be fired because of their opinion." but that it is terribly wrong to say, "We think so-and-so should be fired because of their opinion.". And in neither case is anyone saying that actually doing the firing.

No. Threats of lawsuit and other actions by a well funded and powerful organization like GLAAD does not constitute a demand with no authority. If I personally make such a demand, true. No authority. It would make me something of an asshole but it would do no harm. With an organization like GLAAD with considerable resources available to it, including a friendly media, it is a real threat. Which is why I have been careful to say that we should be able to state our beliefs and opinions without fear that some GROUP, MOB, or ORGANIZATION will come down on us to punish us physically and/or materially. No individual has such power.

So if Bill Gates, for instance, made such a demand, he wouldn't have as much power?

Threats of lawsuits are an unfortunately common occurrence. Why wouldn't you want laws regarding lawsuits changed rather than some vaguely defined law against making demands?

I get the impression you have taken some completely reasonable objections to things and turned them into an idea that we need an even more objectionable law suppressing speech.

However twisted or unethical the Phil Robertson situation may be, he was not made to stop speaking by the government or law. He's free to continue speaking as he has without government interference, as he should be. Why would you want to take that away from others?

 

[Foxfyre]

'Please remove someone from your show' is in my opinion still petty, small minded, and selfish, but it is NOT the same thing as demanding that somebody be fired or else. GLAAD went after A&E with demands that they fire Phil Robertson or else. That is very different from writing the station and telling them that you were offended by whatever and if it continues along those lines you won't be watching. The first request is hateful, vindictive, punishing. The second is advising the station of your personal position on an issue but leaving it to them to change it, correct it, or whatever.

And I'm sorry that you find my point of view disturbing because I find any OTHER point of view disturbing. I think it is wrong, unAmerican, and evil to presume to physically and/or materially punish a person for no other reason than they expressed an opinion that you don't share. I see little difference between that and striking or otherwise injuring a person you are angry with as opposed to just telling them off.

I'm fine with finding it morally or ethically wrong to make those kinds of demands. What I think would be 'unAmerican' would be making it illegal, thereby suppressing someone's speech because you disagree with their opinion (in this case, their opinion that Robertson should be fired).

Oh, and in both of your example the station is left to change, correct, or whatever. Just because GLAAD demands something doesn't mean the station needs to comply. In both cases someone is voicing their displeasure and desire for change in A&E. An individual can just as easily say they want someone fired 'or else', and an individual can also attempt to sway others to that opinion. Should it be illegal for an individual to do the same as a group?

I have no problem with anybody, inidividual or group, expressing an opinion that anybody be fired. I can think immediately think of a dozen politicians at the local, state, and federal levels that I thnk should be fired and have said so. I deal with people all the time that are so incompetent or wrong for their jobs that I think they should be fired and I have said so. There is a huge difference between expressing my opinion that so-and-so should be fired, however, and in threatening a lawsuit or organizing a boycott or whatever if somebody is not fired.

Somehow some of you are having a problem making a distinction between expressing an opinion and taking an action with a premediated purpose of physically and/or materially hurting somebody purely because you don't like their attitude, you don't like what they said, you don't like what color they are, you don't like what religion they are, you don't like who they are, yadda yadda.