3 ms·

Boycotts are unquestionably free speech from a legal perspective and definitional perspective. From a moral perspective, Popehat’s main consistent point is tha

Boycotts are unquestionably free speech from a legal perspective and definitional perspective. From a moral perspective, Popehat’s main consistent point is that you need to be very specific about what behaviors cross a line and actually apply that fairly, which Elon pretty clearly does not. He has no problems asking people to boycott companies: https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/28/elon-musk-calls-for-boycott-of-law-firm-involved-in-homelessness-lawsuit/ https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/28/elon-musk-calls-for-boycot...

zoogeny 3y ago
I have no interest in legality or even morality on this topic. This is a question of rhetoric. The actions in question aren’t a criticism of the ideas of Musk. They are collective actions to harm him by harming his business. The lawsuit will help determine whether or not those actions were legal.
- eapressoandcats 3y ago
  The actions were almost certainly legal, otherwise boycotts are illegal, which would be insane, and also the tweet from Elonin the article I linked above would be illegal as well. Criticism and free speech generally includes that the criticism may convince people (including companies!) to change their behavior. Speaking about rhetoric, the point Popehat is making here is that all of the changes in advertiser behavior are in fact criticism. There is no Motte being retreated to, he is in fact standing firm at the bailey with the statement “criticism that results in financial harm and business action is still just criticism”.
  - zoogeny 3y ago
    This is a switch to “advertisers choosing not to advertise with Twitter is free speech”. That is different than “activists engaging in collective action to threaten advertisers to compel them to boycott Twitter are merely criticizing Musk” As to legality, that will depend on the specific wording they used to compel the advertisers.

zoogeny 3y ago

I have no interest in legality or even morality on this topic. This is a question of rhetoric. The actions in question aren’t a criticism of the ideas of Musk. They are collective actions to harm him by harming his business. The lawsuit will help determine whether or not those actions were legal.

eapressoandcats 3y ago
The actions were almost certainly legal, otherwise boycotts are illegal, which would be insane, and also the tweet from Elonin the article I linked above would be illegal as well. Criticism and free speech generally includes that the criticism may convince people (including companies!) to change their behavior. Speaking about rhetoric, the point Popehat is making here is that all of the changes in advertiser behavior are in fact criticism. There is no Motte being retreated to, he is in fact standing firm at the bailey with the statement “criticism that results in financial harm and business action is still just criticism”.
- zoogeny 3y ago
  This is a switch to “advertisers choosing not to advertise with Twitter is free speech”. That is different than “activists engaging in collective action to threaten advertisers to compel them to boycott Twitter are merely criticizing Musk” As to legality, that will depend on the specific wording they used to compel the advertisers.