I don't think any company should be donating money to charity or other causes. Instead the company should use the money to reduce prices, invest, or increase dividends.
Businesses already carry out a valuable social function - namely, generating wealth in as efficient a manner as possible. They should stick with that, and not presume to make donations on the owner's (that is, the shareholder's) behalf.
Dawg,
I do not think that this is a free speech issue. Wal-Mart is not preventing anyone from speaking. Homosexual activists are still free to speak out. They are simply making a decision on how to spend their profits (which is private property). If they had decided to stop funding global warming skeptics would you have reacted the same way?
There is a big difference between a corporation listening to its customers and a government telling someone what they can or cannot say.
The corporation, as an entity, was exercising it's free speech and freedom to support whomever it wanted, and then it was shouted down by folks on the right...
Uh huh ... and the left never does any shouting? Or perhaps the right is simply not allowed to do any shouting? Regardless, free speech has not been limited. If this Christian group had gone to the government and demanded a ban on gay rights activists that would have been limiting free speech and you can bet I would have been outraged in that case.
Charles and rabbit:
I wasn't here arguing about the internal workings of Wal-Mart, nor their right to stick what it chooses. I was referring to the campaign to make them remove the material from its shelves.
I don't think Pacheco and his cohorts were worrying about stockholders' or proprietor's rights. That's not the issue I was addressing.
Dawg,
All I am saying is that right wing social conservatives (me not being one of them) have the right to put pressure on a firm to change its practices, just as left wing groups do (and quite often I may add). That is the essence of freedom of speech. You many not agree with them (nor do I), but that is the reality of a free society. Pacheco certainly was not worrying about stockholders. Do left wing groups worry about stockholders when they put pressure of firms?
Addressing the free speech issue, then, Wal Mart is free to give money to however they want. Consumers are free to criticize Wal Mart for doing so, and to threaten to boycott the store.
Everybody's free to do what they want. They make decisions based on what they think is best, as usual.
Companies being sensitive to consumer outrage is - on the whole - a good thing. It's the biggest club society has to keep companies operating in a moral fashion. And it's preferable to regulating companies to death, thereby truly restricting their freedom.
In this particular case, the AFA is not a group I support, nor do I respect Wal Mart for caving in, but I don't see a free-speech problem here.
Dawg,
I'm not sure I understand your claim. Free speech libertarians (me being one of them) discuss freedom of speech as a right against interference from the _state_. This doesn't require them to object to the practice of one party persuading another to simply shut up.
Someone doesn't violate my free speech rights when he convinces me that it would be better (in terms of my interests) not to make a stupid point I'm thinking of raising in a seminar room, for example.
You may think it is disingenuous to affirm a right to free speech that is compatible with powerful groups being able to threaten less powerful groups into silence. But libertarians will point out that the "threat" in the Wal-Mart case is one the group making the threat is entitled to make (e.g. "If you don't shut up, we'll boycott you or say you're a bad person"), and is fully compatible with respecting the rights of all parties involved.
How could it be otherwise? Should Christian groups be forbidden from telling Wal-Mart they don't like what Wal-Mart is doing?
Anyway, your post is now featured on the Shotgun blog. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your point -- and, like the person in my seminar example, should have just stayed silent 
Best,
Terrence
Notice how the wingnuts (Rabbit and Charles) talk about Wal-Mart as if it's a person.
The Shotgun post is here:
http://westernstandard.blogs.com...e-
confusio.html
Charles, et al.:
This is simply not a distinction I'm prepared to make. If the "State" shuts me up, it's Nazi-book burnings all over again. But if a Christian lobby shuts me up, or denies me access to books, that's OK--because it's done privately.
Somehow, I'm just as shut up. If you believe in free speech and free expression, it shouldn't matter who's doing the shutting.
I'm not sure I understand your claim. Free speech libertarians (me being one of them) discuss freedom of speech as a right against interference from the _state_.
More and more, I'm finding the libertarian argument opposing the State in favour of the Corporation to be kind of...well, quaint. It ignores completely, the issue of abuse of power in the exercise of freedom and I find that rather troubling.
I may not have been clear enough earlier, for which I apologize.
If people want to persuade Wal-Mart not to give money away to X or Y, that's one thing. I'm objecting to forcing Wal-Mart to remove books from its shelves.
As the indefatigable John Pacheco puts it,
Wal-Mart had outraged pro-family groups for its financial support to homosexual activists, and for the recent promotion for sale of a graphic sex-ed manual promoting teen lesbianism, recalled shortly after a LifeSiteNews.com exposé.
It's the second issue that has exercised me.
Those who claim to be in favour of free expression one minute, until it's expression they don't happen to like, are hypocrites. There's simply no other word for it.
off topic dawg but here's a link to the new york times blogrunner where your morgentaler article was listed.
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapsh...ry_morgentaler/
cheers
"Those who claim to be in favour of free expression one minute, until it's expression they don't happen to like, are hypocrites. There's simply no other word for it."
I agree absolutely.
This, however, is not a free speech issue in the manner of the others to which you refer. There is no government-sponsored tribunal involved nor is there a presiding authority with control of both the purse strings and the arena: this is public pressure to change behaviour of a corporate entity, behaviour the corporation is still entirely free to continue at its whim.
Perhaps the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, and Out & Equal just need to do a better job of convincing Wal-Mart that they, too, have sufficient economic clout to bend the corporate will; it is not as though Wal-Mart hasn't shown that its convictions are for sale.
fergusrush:
You can't support freedom of expression in the absolute way the speech-warriors do, and then mount "public pressure" against free expression. Sorry, doesn't work.
PSA:
Thanks for the heads-up!
"If the "State" shuts me up, it's Nazi-book burnings all over again. But if a Christian lobby shuts me up, or denies me access to books, that's OK--because it's done privately."
Dawg,
I still might think it was a bad thing for Wal-Mart to take those books off its shelves, while maintaining that it was entitled to do so.
I don't think people/organizations should always be legally obligated to use their property in a way that best promotes the interests of all, although it would be nice if they did so.
Ti-Guy,
"It ignores completely, the issue of abuse of power in the exercise of freedom and I find that rather troubling."
Libertarians are going to say that the difference between the power of a state and the power of a corporation has to do with the fact that the state can do things to you that the corporation cannot -- regardless of how big the corporation happens to be.
It's true that a person's range of options can shrink because of the action of a corporation. If, for example, Wal-Mart puts me out of business, then I no longer have an option I once did. So the libertarian is going to have to say that what's objectionable about the state is the _way_ in which it reduces our options.
Are you sure there's no distinction worth making here? The state reduces my options by threatening to hurt me if I don't comply. The corporation cannot threaten to hurt me if I don't do what the corporation wants me to do. It can offer me incentives not to do certain things; it can offer others incentives not to leave certain options available to me; but it cannot literally take options away from me at the point of a gun. That seems like a significant difference.
If what's important is that people have an adequate range of options, then I'm sympathetic to the idea that the distinction I'm making is not that important. But a libertarian is going to respond by saying that what's important is not that I have an adequate range of options, but that my option set not be restricted in certain ways, all involving the use of physical force.
Is there something incoherent about the libertarian's position here? Maybe. But what is it?
Best,
Terrence
Terrence:
For all of your argumentation, freedom of expression is still being compromised. Why is it OK when corporations do it? Why is it OK for speech-warriors with an absolutist approach to freedom of expression to organize pressure to make sure that that freedom isn't exercised?
I''m not arguing for the absolutist position. I'm arguing for consistency. And honesty. You're doing cartwheels to defend the folks who are doing what you dislike about the HRCs. Problem is, the HRCs aren't doing it: they keep dismissing complaints. But the fundies are forcing books off the shelves of Wal-Mart. Hardly a stirring defence of freedom of expression.
For crying out loud, suppression is suppression. Why do you insist on making excuses? Especially when the state isn't doing it?
Ah, but you guys are thinking this is about Walmart (which, incidentally usually gets preferential tax treatment and obtains land in many places through eminent domain...something we libertarians ought to think about). Its about John Pachecco and the other so-called free speech libertarians who demand their voices be heard no matter what, but go out of their way and use threats and intimidation to silence those they disagree with.
There is the hypocrisy. And if you think Pachecco wouldn't use all the coercive power of the state to shut up his enemies if he could, you are nuts.
I suspect Dawg is more disappointed that Walmart caved in to pressure of a loud authoritarian minority threatening bad PR rather than because the books in question just didn't sell.
I suppose that without the state favours and subsidies that Walmart enjoys, another retailer would have existed that would carry the book. Alas, not so much.
Don't get sucked into the vulgar libertarian rhetoric - this is just another way for authoritarians to attempt to control you. And it doesn't matter if if they use the state or a corporation to do it.
They do no believe in "live and let live"...
"You can't support freedom of expression in the absolute way the speech-warriors do, and then mount "public pressure" against free expression. Sorry, doesn't work."
Sorry, Dawg, but you missed my point: you claimed that this case was similar to Carleton U and to Steyn; neither of those cases is remotely like this, for the reasons I mentioned previously.
A boycott is a form of protest against behaviour that one finds objectionable. But it is not an enforced restriction on anyone involved: the boycotters may cease at any time and the targetted entity can choose to ignore it, a choice that is not available to respondents before a government tribunal, I might add. I would not think that the distinction between these is subtle.
the state has a HEAVY hand and walmarts hands are tied to its customers and the market--they can be chopped. It's walmarts decision for its own benefit and its customers. They aren't in business to promote free expression of anything except sell stuff, tho public opinion could force them that way.
I don't think the lesbos have any right to sell their crap anywhere they see fit. Their options are to market their shit better.
I might add, it was these same folk that screamed "Censorship!" at the top of their lungs when a private business - Chapters-Indigo - chose not to carry the old dead tree issue of the Western Standard that carried the Mohamed cartoons.
Wasn't that just a private business making a free choice in the market?
Not according to a certain Ezra Levant at the time...
"Not according to a certain Ezra Levant at the time..."
Levant had his head up his ass that time, Mike. That was not censorship.
"For all of your argumentation, freedom of expression is still being compromised. Why is it OK when corporations do it?"
The _right_ to free expression is not being violated, though. That was my point.
Look, in order to show that someone is a hypocrite/dishonest, you have to show that they do not affirm a moral principle they claim to affirm. But the principle free speech libertarians affirm isn't "All speech is good," or "No debates should ever be silenced" or anything like that.
It's something more limited: it's wrong when threats of physical force are used to silence someone. Peter Jaworski made this point in the comment thread about your post on the Shotgun.
Now if it could be shown that the free speech libertarians were acting contrary to this principle, then there'd be a case could be made for their hypocrisy.
What principle do you think libertarians claim to affirm that their actions show they do not actually affirm?
Terrence
I think that there is a simple difference between state and corporate action here. State action is coerced - that why the HRCs make an "order." Walmart's actions were voluntary - they did not have to do anything. Walmart's freedom of expression is not being restrained by anyone - Walmart just changed its opinion because it wanted to be liked (but it still had the choice to be unliked (kinda like Ti-Guys chooses).
Are you sure there's no distinction worth making here? The state reduces my options by threatening to hurt me if I don't comply. The corporation cannot threaten to hurt me if I don't do what the corporation wants me to do. It can offer me incentives not to do certain things; it can offer others incentives not to leave certain options available to me; but it cannot literally take options away from me at the point of a gun.
I wonder if this is a distinction without a difference - I'm reminded that while we can distinguish between being shot and starving to death, the end result is the same. Corporations can have a lot of influence, and while Wal-Mart isn't really the villain in this piece, its market domination is what contributes to the stifling of free speech.
I'm also reminded that there are two distinct flavours of libertarianism: one is concerned with actual individual freedoms and one that is really just free market absolutism. And here I find a significant difference.
"You can't support freedom of expression in the absolute way the speech-warriors do, and then mount "public pressure" against free expression. Sorry, doesn't work."
Sure you can Dawg. You simply say that the socons are assholes but perfectly entitled to exert whatever pressure they can against a particular corporation, but that the state should not be involved.
Let me try another example, Walmart has decided to go "Green" silly as that is. It has done so to appeal to the vast hoards of deluded members of the SUV owning middle classes who want to feel good about "saving the planet". There has been warmist pressure brought to bear and Walmart - aka "China R'Us" - has pretended to drink the Kool-Aid to keep those SUVs in the parking lot.
Now I know you know that this is dumb assed hypocrisy of the very worst sort in a scientifically bankrupt endevour; but Walmart is pandering to the know nothing Green lobby to keep those SUVs coming. Lord knows they probably already have "Made in China" special hemp bags to take the 54inch plasma screen home in.
Consumer pressure works for evil in both directions because consumers, particularly Walmart consumers, are really remarkably ignorant. Poor buggers watch MSM on those 54 inch TVs. Now know less than nothing.
"Uh huh ... and the left never does any shouting? "
Could you show me where I said that?
Baring that could you please try, for just one moment, and stay on topic?
We're discussing the right's lies and hypocrisy...
There seems to be a certain confusion here, and I no longer think the fault is entirely mine.
Terrence, you ask what principle it is that Pacheco (in this case) affirms selectively. The answer is simple: free expression.
You bring the notion of force into it. That's a bit abstract, and not always apropos. For example, the Carleton University Students Association didn't "ban" anyone. CUSA simply said that Lifeline would not get student monies or CUSA facilities, because it failed (at the time) to conform to a foundational charter that had been agreed to by Carleton students much earlier on, and had in fact been used to deny student subsidies to the Heritage Front many years before.
Lifeline was free to meet where it wanted on campus, hand out its leaflets, invite speakers. Just not on CUSA's dime.
Pacheco called this "censorship." But it seems to me that forcing books off the shelves of a large retailer because you disapprove of the content is more "censorious" than that. In any case, it's not exactly support for free expression, now, it it?
Understand that I'm not arguing that people don't have a right to boycott. I'm not arguing that Wal-Mart has to sell anything it doesn't want to. I'm arguing that someone who believes in free expression shouldn't turn it on and off like a tap.
The state was not involved at Carleton University. No force was involved. But Pacheco got his thong in a twist over what was in fact a democratic decision not to subsidize a club. Think about this, libertarians: why should an association be forced to provide money to a group that doesn't share the association's principles?
Finally, I keep marveling at the logic that argues that speech suppression is fine, just so long as you privatize it. As I said before, whether you do it by making a complaint somewhere or by pressuring booksellers, I'm just as silenced.
"But it seems to me that forcing books off the shelves of a large retailer because you disapprove of the content is more "censorious" than that."
Dawg, Wal-Mart chose to remove the books as the result of the threat of a boycott; it was, and still is, perfectly free to do whatever it wishes. To be forced, as you use the term here, into some action implies that you must act against your own wishes and that is plainly not the case here. If stocking the books involved was truly what Wal-Mart wished to do, it was free to ignore the boycott threat and to make a public statement as to its intentions to do so; the essence of free expression. Instead, it treated the boycott threat as free market research and responded by altering its product mix, thereby remaining true to its purpose of making as much money as possible.
The AFA did not appeal to government agencies or any third-party to coerce Wal-Mart.
Geeze, fergusrush, are you in favour of free public expression, or not? It really comes down to that.
In any case, my criticism wasn't directed at Wal-Mart, as I've said. Let's bracket that one for now. I was being critical of Pacheco's selective commitment to the right of free expression. A simple point, that has somehow been conflated with free-market economics.
Urge a boycott and force a company to knuckle under by all means. It worked on Chapters a while back. Just don't claim that you're a martyr for freedom of expression while you're doing it.
Cameron,
"The corporation, as an entity, was exercising its free speech and freedom to support whomever it wanted, and then it was shouted down by folks on the right..." Are you suggesting that only the "right" shouts down corporations? Or perhaps only the left is allowed to exert influence over corporations. My point is that we all have the right to try and exert influence over corporations. Corporations, in turn, have the right to decide whether it is in their best interests to succumb to our pressure. If Wal-Mart refuses to sell magazines with explicit gay content, there will be other vendors that will be more than willing to sell them.
Ti-guy,
Your arrogance astounds me. Wal-Mart is not a person but its owners are ... and they have property rights.
Charles, I find the best way to proceed is to actually address the words that the person says and not make up new ones.
It makes you look less like a dick and more like a person who isn't, you know, lying.
I don't want to belabour this, I just want to get to a point where we understand each other's position, and maybe we can just agree to disagree after that.
My position (and I don't speak for others) is this: To be a principled defender of what the Charter means by "freedom of expression" and what the 1st amendment in the U.S. means is to defend acts of expression against violence or the threat of violence.
I said on the Shotgun that defending one kind of speech against another kind of speech is not to focus on the "speech" part, but on something else, namely, the *content* of the speech. Then we privilege one kind of speech over another, and we do not actually defend the principle of freedom of expression in general. We defend expression of a certain sort against expression of a different sort.
I don't know Pacheco's motivations. I suspect that many so-called free speech champions actually just want the freedom to criticize Muslims, but would probably be all-too-happy to use the state to silence critics of Christianity or Judaism.
Maybe you're attacking Pacheco for not being a consistent defender of freedom of speech, and for using libertarian language only in those cases that are congenial to their prejudices, preferences, interests, points-of-view, and so on.
But then we shouldn't call these people "free speech" defenders, but, as you called them, some sort of magic cloak "defenders" of speech. Maybe that's what you meant, originally.
And maybe my real beef is in the selection of cases to make your point, rather than the general argument that you're making. Because the Wal-Mart case is not an instance of a case that bears on your point.
I should point out that good libertarians have been busy denouncing corporations that fit a Wal-Mart-like model all the time. But not for being "big" or for having cheap stuff, but for taking tax money, for using eminent domain, and so on. All things that good libertarians are opposed to.
That there are bad libertarians is no objection to libertarianism, per se.
Your arrogance astounds me.
Just astounding? Obviously, I'm not trying hard enough.
"Geeze, fergusrush, are you in favour of free public expression, or not? It really comes down to that."
I most certainly am in favour of it, Dawg. I merely disagree with the notion that urging a boycott limits free public expression for the simple reason that the target is not compelled to act in any manner whatsoever. Coercion, as in a tribunal's decree, cannot be equated with persuasion, as in informing a party that certain behaviour of theirs will result in certain actions of yours. To me, responding to a boycott by altering your behaviour is no different than, say, Canadian Cynic deciding to keep his anonymity to avoid what he feels may be negative reaction to his blogging style in his business life: in both cases the parties are free to act as they see fit according to how they view the consequences of their actions. I think we all make these kinds of decisions everyday.
Since we've had no burnings-at-the-stake or public hangings that I am aware of in this matter, I find it laughable that anyone would deem themselves a martyr for freedom of expression 
. Mister Pacheco is taking himself more than a bit too seriously if he believes such a thing.
Good post, by the way. Meant to say that earlier, if I did not already do so.
To be a principled defender of what the Charter means by "freedom of expression" and what the 1st amendment in the U.S. means is to defend acts of expression against violence or the threat of violence.
That's an interesting position: why exclude non-violent forms of coercion (assuming a fairly narrow definition of "violence")?
Jaws:
the Wal-Mart case is not an instance of a case that bears on your point.
My point was precisely as you summed it up: the blatant inconsistency of "magic cloak" speech warriors.
I take your point over at Shotgun that one can defend free speech on grounds other than utilitarian or "ends" justifications. But let's be clear on what those alternative grounds are.
If the defence of free speech turns on the issue of violence, so be it. But I don't see anything like that clear line of reasoning (with which I disagree, by the way, but that's for another day)in Pacheco. He'll just use what tools are handy to 1) advance his own causes, and b) stifle his opponents.
On the question of violence, why does this reduce to physical violence? Is the threat of losing your house a form of violence? I would argue that it is. That's the SLAPP-suit advantage. Is the threat of attacking your livelihood because you say things I don't like a form of violence? Ditto.
So let's look at this from the point of view of the author of the gay-friendly book. His right to free public expression is under attack. It's not that people don't choose to buy his book. It's that people are being denied that choice because of pressure brought to bear on the retailer. So my rights as a consumer are also under attack. People who disagree with the author are interposing themselves between the author and me.
I can't see how a libertarian can assent to this. But then, I'm not a libertarian, and for precisely this reason: too many internal contradictions. Again, a discussion for another day, perhaps. The topic at hand already seems to be big enough. : )
Since Walmart only exists to make a profit, they have the right to decide what they are going to sell. You have the right not to shop there if you don't agree with their policies.
fergusrush:
Coercion, as in a tribunal's decree, cannot be equated with persuasion, as in informing a party that certain behaviour of theirs will result in certain actions of yours.
That's the kind of "persuasion," with respect, that is equivalent to saying, "Nice business you've got. Be a shame if anything happened to it."
Stan:
I'd agree, if that's all this amounted to. But, as I've said, the consumer isn't even being given a chance to choose. That's not right.
Consumers who disagree can shop eleswhere. Walmart deccided that it was more profitable to please a religious group than it was to please the homosexuals. Judging by their business success, I'd say they know their customer base fairly well.
Or just got scared off by a threat.
"That's the kind of "persuasion," with respect, that is equivalent to saying, "Nice business you've got. Be a shame if anything happened to it.""
You don't really believe that, do you? It's more along the lines of "I think I shall have to take my business elsewhere", is it not?
Not quite. It's more like, "We're organizing a boycott because we don't like what one of your authors is saying."
Surely most of the people engaged in this dubious enterprise wouldn't term it "defending freedom of expression."
"But, as I've said, the consumer isn't even being given a chance to choose. That's not right."
Not so, Dawg. The consumer is always only able to buy what is for sale. Consumers of the removed items are free to kick up a fuss of their own to get the items returned to the shelves; that, too, would be an exercise in free expression. And if they were successful in having the first decision overturned, they, and the company, would be expressing their desires freely as well. The fact that two opposing sides cannot be reconciled does not imply that anyone's rights have been infringed; freedom of expression does not mean guarantee of outcome.
"Surely most of the people engaged in this dubious enterprise wouldn't term it "defending freedom of expression.""
And neither would I. I see it as an example of the use of free expression.
Seeing a product you like disappear from the shelf because a more populous group exerts market pressure on the seller is no different than seeing the government you prefer lose power because they didn't get enough votes: if you don't like it, and you really care about it, get out and drum up support for your cause.
fergusrush:
With all due respect, balderdash. Consumers aren't an army of engaged citizens. It's completely unrealistic to suggest that they have the same power as the organizers of a boycott.
Many of them might not even have dreamt that such a book existed. A lot of book sales are spontaneous. In any case, do you seriously believe it's an exemplary exercise in defending freedom of expression to deny unorganized consumers a choice by threatening the retailer?
I swear, some of you folks are turning into pretzels.
I swear, some of you folks are turning into pretzels.
Well, that's the essence of gLibertarianism.
Negative freedom is a dead end of an issue, since you're never really talking about anything at all.
I'm lucky that I can choose to boycott Wal-Mart. In a lot places, people no longer have that choice.
No Dawg, it's you who is turning into a pretzel. Walmart only exists to make a profit, not to promote free speech. Besides, Walmart is not the only store in the country. Consumers have the freedom to go elsewhere.
Dawg,
I should have been clearer. When I asked you to identify the principle libertarians claim to affirm, I meant the actual decision-rule. "Free expression" isn't really a rule; "Don't use violence to stop others from expressing themselves" is a rule.
As long as libertarians are not using or advocating the use of violence to shut people up, then they're not acting inconsistently with that rule.
It could be argued that libertarians are wrong either about a) the lack of violence involved in the threat of a boycott; or b) their focus on violence (as opposed to other forms of speech suppression.)
But either of these would indicate a substantive problem with the libertarian principle. In making these claims, we would be arguing that the principle is wrong, or too limited. But we would not be able to claim that the libertarians who affirm it are somehow acting inconsistently in this case.
Best,
Terrence
Stan:
You keep missing the point. Wal-Mart is not my target of choice here. Boycott organizers and supporters who want to stifle freedom of expression are. Or, even more precisely, said boycott organizers and supporters who would claim, at the same time and with a straight face, that they support freedom of expression.
Terrence:
Let's take this back to Pacheco. Where is the violence in the Carleton University matter that he himself raised? I notice that no one took me up on this point.
Nor, for the record, do I happen to believe that a complaints hearing before an administrative tribunal constitutes violence. But, as I am familiar at least to some extent with libertarian ideas, I'll save that issue for another time. (No doubt you'll argue that state coercion is involved, if only in the wings.)
Dawg,
Yeaah, don't get me wrong. I'm being more of a devil's advocate here than might be apparent. I do have a problem with the suppression of debate (you won't find me cheering Wal-Mart _or_ Carleton, for instance.)
But that's because I'm more of an "ends-oriented" liberal than a "natural rights" libertarian. My concern is that Human Rights Tribunals really can function to cut off debates.
Most of my objections to state action really are practical, in that even when the state sets out to promote some worthwhile end, it usually does so badly, with enormous, unnecessary costs.
Anyway, I suspectt you and I (and Jaws) agree more than we disagree on these issues.
Best,
Terrence
No Dawg, if these people were breaking into Walmart stores and burning the books, they could be accused of being against freedom of expression. They simply complained and Walmart responded.
Many groups have issues with Walmart, and Walmart ignores most of them because it doesn't affect the bottom line to do so. It seems that this has only become an issue for you because Walmart didn't ignore this particular group.
Well, stan, I'll make this point one last time: Wal-Mart capitulating to intimidation was not the subject of my post. Go back and read it. The object of my criticism is a person who wants to be seen as a defender of freedom of expression on the one hand, but supports a boycott to muzzle it on the other.
That's hypocrisy. And it doesn't matter if it's a supermarket or Disney Productions, it's still hypocrisy.
"Many of them might not even have dreamt that such a book existed. A lot of book sales are spontaneous. In any case, do you seriously believe it's an exemplary exercise in defending freedom of expression to deny unorganized consumers a choice by threatening the retailer?"
So then, just to be clear, you think that uninformed consumers, completely unaware that a book exists, are having their rights to theoretical spontaneous purchases of said books infringed by a corporation's voluntary choice of response to another group's organized effort to freely express their dissatisfaction with the corporation's reading material vending choices?
Seriously though, no books are being banned here and nobody is losing the right to make whatever point they wish to make. As I see it, it is not "an exemplary exercise in defending freedom of expression" because freedom of expression is not being threatened here, it's being exercised.
Dawg, if Wal-Mart had yanked those books for any other reason, would you be saying that they were infringing the rights of the uninformed-yet-spontaneous buyers? As you or someone here said before, the result would be the same.
"Consumers aren't an army of engaged citizens. It's completely unrealistic to suggest that they have the same power as the organizers of a boycott."
I did not say they were, Dawg. In fact, I said they could do so if they cared enough about the issue. Surely that is the essence of freedom of expression, the potential to express yourself if you desire to do so, no? The power of the boycotters lies in their unity of purpose, something not limited to them alone; they simply care more. While Pacheco's martyr complex is ludicrous, his choice to organize or support such a thing does not infringe on anyone's rights.
fergusrush:
To begin with, this statement of mine--
In any case, do you seriously believe it's an exemplary exercise in defending freedom of expression to deny unorganized consumers a choice by threatening the retailer?
--was confusing on my part. My apologies. I've been debating Terrence on some wider issues. The comment should not have been used in this context: denying consumers a choice is not directly linked to freedom of expression, although it obviously bears directly on freedom per se.
On that question, though (freedom to choose): Why not let the marketplace decide? Yet these boycotters prefer intimidation instead, to prevent others from even seeing a book that the zealot group disapproves of.
You are arguing that individual consumers need to band together and become militants because a group of zealots has decided to muscle a supermarket into removing a book from its shelves. That's silly: that's not how consumer behaviour works, and you know it.
Now, as to freedom of expression, which is what you and I were discussing specifically: the freedom of the book's author to public expression is clearly diminished by the zealots' coercive tactics. My ability as an author to present my views to an audience is being interfered with by a group that wants, in effect, to prevent me from communicating with it.
Indeed, their quarrel is not so much with Wal-Mart as with the author. By striking at Wal-Mart, they are striking at the author, and eventually, in this case, their strong-arm tactics were successful.
Now, by all means let them play those games, but it's a bit much to argue, as you are doing, that no freedom of expression issues are involved. And it takes real crust for one of the aforementioned zealots to argue that he's a defender of freedom of expression, while supporting tactics that are deliberately aimed at curtailing it.
"Now, as to freedom of expression, which is what you and I were discussing specifically: the freedom of the book's author to public expression is clearly diminished by the zealots' coercive tactics."
I see your point here and agree that the author's exposure to the public is diminished as a result. But the actions of the "zealots" do not infringe the author's right to pen the book in the first place nor have it published; Wal-Mart is not the only bookseller around. Heather Reisman has made clear that some titles are beyond-the-pale as far as being considered for a place on her store's shelves, and I would not say that she is limiting the ability of those authors to make their points. For me it's like this: the author is free to write the book, the vendor is free to sell it, the "zealots" are free to complain, and the vendor is free to respond as he sees fit, stocking the book or not at his whim. This give-and-take is an example of the market at work, in my opinion. Wal-Mart could just as easily have said that the AFA could take a hike and kept stocking the book...and my feelings would be exactly the same as they are now.
fergusrush:
I think way may be closing in on agreement. But I'm not sure. : )
Simply writing a book that no one will read isn't much of an exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails communicating the content of that expression to others.
If someone decides to interfere with that communication, to prevent the author from being read, it's clearly contradictory for that same person to claim to be a champion of free expression.
It doesn't matter a darn that the author can find someone else to sell his book. He likely has several distributors in the first place: it's not as though an author trails serially from retailer to retailer. His rights are diminished by the zealots--they aren't extinguished altogether. Unless, of course, the zealots extend the boycott to all possible outlets, and are successful at it. Do you think they would object to doing this, if they had the means?
But in any case, telling the author to go somewhere else strikes me as cavalier. It's like telling Rosa Parks that there are plenty of seats in the back of the bus.
Wal-Mart could have taken a less craven position, but, as I explained, it's simple cost-benefit analysis. It's a calculation much like that of a doctor who decides to stop performing abortions after receiving a death threat.
Who is hurt? The author, who has less of an audience than before; and the consumer, who has less of a choice than before.
As noted, you have the right to do your negative campaign and effect both of those outcomes. But as far as the author's right to communicate is concerned, it's a bit much to argue that you are standing up for free expression while engaging in actions to diminish it.
Incidentally, this has turned into a heck of a good thread. Thanks for your contributions to it so far.
"Unless, of course, the zealots extend the boycott to all possible outlets, and are successful at it. Do you think they would object to doing this, if they had the means?"
If they were trying to do that, I'd be more concerned about their motives, to be frank, although I suspect they would not be sucessful. I think they targeted Wal-Mart because they actually shop there and didn't want to see what they consider to be offensive material on display. This is conjecture on my part but I don't think they care that the material is published, they just don't want to have to pass by it when buying the charcoal for the weekend barbecue. If they had targeted the publisher instead, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly.
And like I said before, I don't feel their have been any "martyrs" for free speech in any of these shenanigans.
This is more a case of Walmart being pressured by moral correctness in the same way leftists pressure corporations and almost everyone with political correctness.
The big difference is that moral correctness issues don't land you in a kangaroo court facing possible imprisonment or bankruptcy. Whereas, moral correctness will leave you with a choice to make.
I have been to Walmart many time and I have never seen anyone there who even remotely looks like a homosexual. I believe the shop in places with better taste and quality in their products.
So this is a non issue. It's just business.
Guido:
What on earth does a homosexual look like?
have been to Walmart many time and I have never seen anyone there who even remotely looks like a homosexual.
Oh, good Lord...
Repent. The end is nigh!
. . . never seen anyone there who even remotely looks like a homosexual. What the fuck??!!!
Yeah, 'cause gays are all upper middle class male pansies who could be in "queer eye for the straight guy". No lower-income queers in the world.
-----
Meanwhile, I notice a number of attempts to say "But the left is just the same" when this hypocrisy is pointed out. But the left isn't just the same. By and large, the left tends to have a nuanced position on speech issues. For the left, the question generally ultimately boils down to "For any given case, which fucks people over less--supporting the speech or curtailing it?" In nearly all cases, supporting the speech carries the day. But there are exceptions, and when those exceptions come along both human rights tribunals and boycotts may be appropriate responses. Put simply, if you *support* the human rights board, it's not inconsistent to oppose harmful speech with a boycott. Agree or disagree with the position, it is consistent.
Pacheco seems clearly inconsistent.
The Libertarian position enunciated above is consistent and much more defensible than the so-con right, who clearly and much more generally than this incident only favour free speech when it's theirs. I find it inadequate, though. The line between "violence" and every other form of coercion is facile, and it doesn't really map to state vs. private or corporate action anyway. In the modern era most state penalties that enforce adherence to state-sanctioned norms are not directly based on violence in the first place. They're financial, or even bureaucratic (can't get your passport, driver's license etc.)
One could argue that the *reason* they can impose those penalties is that ultimately they can call on violence as a backup. But then, the financial penalties a corporation can impose on you are also ultimately backed by state violence.
In any case, in today's world many financial penalties are more serious to your wellbeing than many direct violence penalties. I'd far rather get beaten up than lose my job. I'd rather get punched in the nose than fined a thousand bucks, or even five hundred. I'd rather get hospitalized for a month or three than lose my house. I'd rather break a few bones than lose the free health care that will let me get them set properly without going in the hole. Go extreme enough, and as a family man there could be financial penalties more important to me than my life--but in any case, death is not in theory a threat the Canadian state wields. No death penalty.
So a rule that says "Any threat to speech that is not based on violence is OK, and violence should be considered implicit in every state act but no other act" strikes me as an utterly inadequate basis for an ethic about speech.
Purple Library Guy, I have to admit that I thought the who "My gaydar tells me that gays don't come to Walmart" was pretty damn lame.
That said, people can boycott whatever the hell they want for whatever reason they want and good for them. As I recall, Colorado (or some such ski state) rolled back an anti-gay ordnance in the face of a massive gay boycott (and, CHRC please note there was no space in "boycott"...I don't want to be complained about or anything).
Activists have a perfect right to whine on about whatever the Hell they want to...God knows the lingerie challenged Tzeborah Berman managed to cow Victoria's Secret into using recycled, no "old growth", paper for their catalogs with the treat that she and all her gal pals would stop shopping.
Seems like fair ball to me. Tze didn't use the state, she used a couple of hundred thousand eco-warrior women who need underwear.
Those of use who believe that markets are a good thing recognize that price and quality are not the only things which influence purchase decisions. So does big and little business which is why you see all the sucky "We're green" bullshit pumped out. The middle class are having one of their periodic manias and no smart marketer is going to miss this level of irrationality or expose his firm to the wrath of the soccer mums.
OK...Tze made a "threat" not a "treat"
Ti-Guy, I saw someone pretty damn swish, not to say festive, in aisle 7. Very butch, looking at radial arm saws.
Jay:
You can't be both "butch" and "swish" at the same time.
I have no problem at all with boycotts. Boycotts are democratic. Boycotts work. Boycotts are a major weapon in the arsenal of any activist.
But if you are going to organize, participate in, or support a boycott to get books off shelves, whether in a library, a school or a supermarket, you can't stand up at the same time and proclaim what a defender of freedom of expression you are. Well, I guess you can: but you'd be a hypocrite of the first water if you did.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
