2 ms·

> one which fails to acknowledge the concept that freedom of speech may be a broadly good thing. How does Patagonia's stance do anything to freedom of speech?

> one which fails to acknowledge the concept that freedom of speech may be a broadly good thing. How does Patagonia's stance do anything to freedom of speech? I don't follow your post after this assertion. Is Patagonia not exercising its rights directly? Are you suggesting that a more-free-speech approach would be having the government force you to sell your products directly to people you don't want to? I'm confused how you connected Patagonia's actions to free speech. They are standing up for free speech and free actions, if anything, and it sounds like you're suggesting that they are against free speech with this move. But free speech is the very idea that supports and protects this move.

fennecfoxen 6y ago
Patagonia's actions are 100% within their rights. Patagonia's actions are 100% about exercising their rights, as you say. Both Facebook and Patagonia are entitled by the First Amendment, as reiterated by Citizens United, to exercise the freedom of speech directly, on behalf of their owners or shareholders. There is no First Amendment violation of any sort. Nevertheless, the thing that Patagonia are exercising their rights to do is a call for censorship. The point of the boycott is to pressure Facebook to censor users' content, with the aims of preventing certain viewpoints from being expressed. These viewpoints are likely noxious. This is a call for censorship in practice. This exercise in free speech seeks to undermine the exercise of free speech. This movement is a call to reduce the freedoms which is made available in practice to the people of the world. I do not believe it will stop here. I believe it will not stop until it is very harmful. I believe someday the fruits of this movement, if successful, will gravely harm the freedoms of expression generally. I therefore condemn and denounce it (though I will not call for it to be censored.)

fennecfoxen 6y ago

Patagonia's actions are 100% within their rights. Patagonia's actions are 100% about exercising their rights, as you say. Both Facebook and Patagonia are entitled by the First Amendment, as reiterated by Citizens United, to exercise the freedom of speech directly, on behalf of their owners or shareholders. There is no First Amendment violation of any sort. Nevertheless, the thing that Patagonia are exercising their rights to do is a call for censorship. The point of the boycott is to pressure Facebook to censor users' content, with the aims of preventing certain viewpoints from being expressed. These viewpoints are likely noxious. This is a call for censorship in practice. This exercise in free speech seeks to undermine the exercise of free speech. This movement is a call to reduce the freedoms which is made available in practice to the people of the world. I do not believe it will stop here. I believe it will not stop until it is very harmful. I believe someday the fruits of this movement, if successful, will gravely harm the freedoms of expression generally. I therefore condemn and denounce it (though I will not call for it to be censored.)