You are indeed correct, you do not understand. I did not state in any way you are not allowed to express your opinion. I suggest you read over my post again to

You are indeed correct, you do not understand. I did not state in any way you are not allowed to express your opinion. I suggest you read over my post again to see that I did not suggest this. My post was about someone attempting to shut down an opposing viewpoint they do not agree with. Expressing your opinion is one thing, preventing another from expressing his is another. As for "somehow dangerous", please read the post again. Here, I'll quote from the very first sentence for you; "in this case I can't speak of it being dangerous". Yes indeed, you are allowed to express your opinion and recommend that people avoid providing him with money if they disagree with what he has to say. But that's the consequences part; read the post again. The consequences being that with your boycott in an attempt to punish the target of your disagreement you are more likely hurting people who have nothing to do with the thing you are disagreeing with. Those are the consequences. If you feel fine with that, then power to you and by all means speak up. Just keep in mind that their might be hundreds of people with families to support that may be somewhat upset with your choice. In the end I'm not even suggesting that Card should be saying the things he does. I disagree with him with my total being. But I am aware of how these things work, just read history. If you provide someone with the power to curtail speech that you do not like, that gives them the power to curtail all speech. It's why I disagree with hate speech laws. Who defines hate speech? Today hate speech may be defined as stating negative things about minorities, tomorrow it could be defined as saying anything negative against government or your local police department. Sometimes when you make your short-term choices, you have to consider the long-term consequences.