3 ms·
No, neither of you get it. All you have is the right to speech free from governmental impedance; you do not have any sort of right to speech free from civil con
by nollidge 13y ago
No, neither of you get it. All you have is the right to speech free from governmental impedance; you do not have any sort of right to speech free from civil consequences.
Boycotts are a form of free speech too, you know. How come you're not so antsy to defend those rights, I wonder?
- anaphor 13y agoWhile it may not technically be a violation of laws protecting freedom of speech, consider for example... - Organizing a group of bookstores to stop selling a certain book because you find it offensive for any reason - Using your privileged position at say, a conference, to get other speakers removed because you dislike them - as a web service provider, removing a website about a topic you find offensive None of these have anything to do with the government making a law that infringes on free speech. If they don't violate laws protecting free speech then they certainly piss all over the spirit of it. Or are they only bad when the speech is the "right" kind of speech? Also as I said elsewhere in the thread, most of the time I find boycotts ineffective, especially when it would only jurt innocent people and when the change it creates is merely cosmetic. You're certainly free to boycott anything you wish, and to ask others to boycott, but you can't expect everyone to agree it's a good idea.
- joshlegs 13y agoboycotts are fine. the problem is that people are taking personal issues and making them into corporate issues, and that's what is not OK. a person's private life and professional life are SEPARATE. You shouldn't punish Mozilla employees for things the person at the helm does IN HIS PRIVATE LIFE