6 ms·

Censorship doesn't have to be government-run to be censorship, and in some cases (such as when a privately run Website's policy says "no swearing or your posts

Censorship doesn't have to be government-run to be censorship, and in some cases (such as when a privately run Website's policy says "no swearing or your posts will be deleted") it can even be a perfectly acceptable practice. I don't think this boycott is really very well thought out, though. It really is (as another HN community member pointed out) punitive rather than corrective; his opinion isn't funded by customers' spending at Whole Foods the way, say, customers' money funds Sony/BMG's use of DRM. Boycotting Sony/BMG for DRM use is corrective, providing a perfect counterexample to the poorly conceived boycott of Whole Foods and its punitive effect. It's not even a boycott of principle related to how one's money is spent, as far as I can tell.

gnaritas 17y ago
You don't have a right to not be censored or for suffering the consequences of unpopular speech. You only have the right to not be punished by the government for it; it's perfectly acceptable to be punished by the public for it.
- philwelch 17y ago
  It's perfectly legal, but it's also legal to post racist attacks against Obama's family on the internet as a protest against health care reform. It doesn't make it "acceptable" or "a good thing" just because it's perfectly within our legal and constitutional rights to do so. Our legal and constitutional rights are wide-ranging enough to allow people to be immoral jackasses without the law ever laying a hand on them. This doesn't mean "it's fine to be a jackass", it just means "it causes more harm than good for the government to outlaw all forms of jackassery".
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    Well I find it perfectly acceptable to boycott companies with whom I disagree. I think it is a good thing. That you find voting with your walled somehow a bad thing quite frankly confuses me, I do not understand you position. No buying products is not in any way comparable to posting pictures of Obama's daughters being raped by bears. One is a personal attack, one is just a refusal to financially support.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      "It's your legal right, therefore it's acceptable" is a fallacious argument, yet it's the argument you gave. That was the main problem. That having been said, I would rather not punish people's livelihood for expressing contrary opinions to mine in newspapers. If the company is actually doing things (putting DRM in music, hiring Latin American death squads to eliminate union bosses, beating employees, racially segregating their customers, donating tons of money to political parties, pulling Google Voice apps from the App Store), then boycotts are fine. If all you're doing is writing an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, where's the rationale? What's so offensive about writing an editorial that it deserves a boycott? What's so offensive about simple disagreement? If I happen to agree with John Mackey will you stop being friends with me? Refuse to let me borrow a couple bucks for lunch even if I have an excellent record for paying you back? Not come to my yard sale? That's a pretty dick move. I always thought it was reasonable, even healthy to have friends, do business, and even make love with people who have different politics than you do. I don't really care for the alternative.
      - gnaritas 17y ago
        If those contrary opinions potentially affect me because they persuade people to take the other side and stop progress I'm hoping to see, then hell yes I want to punish their livelihood before they punish mine. There's a difference between having a different opinion, and actively pushing that agenda. I don't care what he believes personally, but putting an editorial in a major paper is not having an opinion, it's actively advocating one; you are no longer a civilian in a sense, you've become a solder for that agenda and you should expect retribution from those who disagree and will be negatively affected should your agenda succeed.
        philwelch 17y ago
        Do you think it would be okay for an employer to fire his employees for engaging in political activism for causes the employer does not support? For instance, if one of my employees holds a position of authority in a labor union, and in that position, publicly endorses a congressional candidate whom I oppose, should I be able to fire that employee? Your analogy actually exposes the major problem here: rather than being a fellow member of society acting in good faith who simply endorses a different solution than you do, you cast Mr. Mackey as a "soldier" for an "agenda" who deserves "retribution" because he (implication: intentionally) is trying to "negatively affect" people. You allow absolutely no room for someone to disagree in good faith: the minute someone expresses a criticism of a political position you believe in, that person is "the enemy" and deserves "retribution". I adopt what I consider a more enlightened view: that people who disagree with me may just be right, that they are acting in good faith, that their criticisms deserve an answer, and that they are fellow members of the community. Your mindset is that of a civil war between pigheaded zealots, mine is that of a peaceful and free society of civil, fair-minded people. You try to destroy people you disagree with without listening to them. I listen to them and carefully consider their views. Most of all, you presume that all of your opinions are right above all criticism, question, or suggestion of alternatives. I carefully consider every criticism of, and alternative to, my views because I have changed my mind in the past and anticipate having cause to change my mind in the future. People who are incapable of considering the possibility they might be wrong aren't suited for a democracy. They're suited for a religious war. That's what this "boycott" against Mackey is, that's what the "boycott" against the Dixie Chicks was, and that's what politics in this country has degraded to. Please keep that in mind.
  - fatdog789 17y ago
    Actual, both bestiality and child pornography are illegal in the US, so your photoshopped image(s) would be illegal, and probably would require you to register as a sex offender for life.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      OK, you got me there. Example changed.

gnaritas 17y ago

You don't have a right to not be censored or for suffering the consequences of unpopular speech. You only have the right to not be punished by the government for it; it's perfectly acceptable to be punished by the public for it.

philwelch 17y ago
It's perfectly legal, but it's also legal to post racist attacks against Obama's family on the internet as a protest against health care reform. It doesn't make it "acceptable" or "a good thing" just because it's perfectly within our legal and constitutional rights to do so. Our legal and constitutional rights are wide-ranging enough to allow people to be immoral jackasses without the law ever laying a hand on them. This doesn't mean "it's fine to be a jackass", it just means "it causes more harm than good for the government to outlaw all forms of jackassery".
- gnaritas 17y ago
  Well I find it perfectly acceptable to boycott companies with whom I disagree. I think it is a good thing. That you find voting with your walled somehow a bad thing quite frankly confuses me, I do not understand you position. No buying products is not in any way comparable to posting pictures of Obama's daughters being raped by bears. One is a personal attack, one is just a refusal to financially support.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    "It's your legal right, therefore it's acceptable" is a fallacious argument, yet it's the argument you gave. That was the main problem. That having been said, I would rather not punish people's livelihood for expressing contrary opinions to mine in newspapers. If the company is actually doing things (putting DRM in music, hiring Latin American death squads to eliminate union bosses, beating employees, racially segregating their customers, donating tons of money to political parties, pulling Google Voice apps from the App Store), then boycotts are fine. If all you're doing is writing an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, where's the rationale? What's so offensive about writing an editorial that it deserves a boycott? What's so offensive about simple disagreement? If I happen to agree with John Mackey will you stop being friends with me? Refuse to let me borrow a couple bucks for lunch even if I have an excellent record for paying you back? Not come to my yard sale? That's a pretty dick move. I always thought it was reasonable, even healthy to have friends, do business, and even make love with people who have different politics than you do. I don't really care for the alternative.
    - gnaritas 17y ago
      If those contrary opinions potentially affect me because they persuade people to take the other side and stop progress I'm hoping to see, then hell yes I want to punish their livelihood before they punish mine. There's a difference between having a different opinion, and actively pushing that agenda. I don't care what he believes personally, but putting an editorial in a major paper is not having an opinion, it's actively advocating one; you are no longer a civilian in a sense, you've become a solder for that agenda and you should expect retribution from those who disagree and will be negatively affected should your agenda succeed.
      - philwelch 17y ago
        Do you think it would be okay for an employer to fire his employees for engaging in political activism for causes the employer does not support? For instance, if one of my employees holds a position of authority in a labor union, and in that position, publicly endorses a congressional candidate whom I oppose, should I be able to fire that employee? Your analogy actually exposes the major problem here: rather than being a fellow member of society acting in good faith who simply endorses a different solution than you do, you cast Mr. Mackey as a "soldier" for an "agenda" who deserves "retribution" because he (implication: intentionally) is trying to "negatively affect" people. You allow absolutely no room for someone to disagree in good faith: the minute someone expresses a criticism of a political position you believe in, that person is "the enemy" and deserves "retribution". I adopt what I consider a more enlightened view: that people who disagree with me may just be right, that they are acting in good faith, that their criticisms deserve an answer, and that they are fellow members of the community. Your mindset is that of a civil war between pigheaded zealots, mine is that of a peaceful and free society of civil, fair-minded people. You try to destroy people you disagree with without listening to them. I listen to them and carefully consider their views. Most of all, you presume that all of your opinions are right above all criticism, question, or suggestion of alternatives. I carefully consider every criticism of, and alternative to, my views because I have changed my mind in the past and anticipate having cause to change my mind in the future. People who are incapable of considering the possibility they might be wrong aren't suited for a democracy. They're suited for a religious war. That's what this "boycott" against Mackey is, that's what the "boycott" against the Dixie Chicks was, and that's what politics in this country has degraded to. Please keep that in mind.
- fatdog789 17y ago
  Actual, both bestiality and child pornography are illegal in the US, so your photoshopped image(s) would be illegal, and probably would require you to register as a sex offender for life.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    OK, you got me there. Example changed.