Hear hear! Reminds me of when I went out to buy Salmon Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" to support him after Muslim extremists put a contract out on his life. Or when I went to cross the Christianist picket lines to see Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ." Free speech is the foundation of a free society. Let the ideas & opinions play out in the marketplace of ideas. Book burners and the rest of those who would suppress free expression obviously fear seeing their ideas lose out in the competition of that marketplace. I'm not a big fan of country music, but go Dixie Chicks!

Funny thing is, it (the boycotts and slander) never works--it always, in fact, helps sales. The Catholics drove more movie-goers to The Da Vinci Code, and this Harry Potter fan remembers very well how sales of Rowling's books took off after the Falwelll crowd started roasting the Potter tomes--it helped create the now vast adult audience for Rowling that we have now (more than half her readership is 18 or older since Half-Blood Prince).

The behavior of prejudice is always driven by desperation. That includes gay-bashing at the highest levels.

I don't think opting not to buy an album is the same as trying to "destroy" someone. The underlying sentiment might be as simple as, "Well, I just don't feel like buying their albums anymore."

In any case, even if the boycott is motivated by greater animus than that, I still don't think there's much of a problem with it. If you're interested, I argue the point here.

Q the Enchanter, an individual person deciding not to buy a cd is not a boycott.

David Wienberger in the article posted by Norm makes this clear.

You are totally within your rights to never buy another DC CD, to microwave your DC collection, to tell your local radio station you'll change the channel permanently if it plays a song by any band with a D and a C in its name, and to say on talk radio that Maines is a traitor who ought to have her head shaved and be driven down the streets of Baghdad tied to the front of a Hummer. Whatever. There's no question in my mind that all this is free speech.

Ok, I read that again, and that's not what he's getting at.

The point he's making is that boycotting something shuts down freedom of expression, while girlcotting [sic] something opens up the door to free expression.

If I decide that I don't want to buy a cd because I don't like the group, then that is my decision. But if I start demanding that a radio station not play the cd, then I am saying that I do not believe in free speech.

I don't see an individual choice not to buy something as a boycott. But if I start insisting that others do not buy something for political reasons, then I am saying that the person has no right to disagree with me and that the punishment for disagreeing with me is that they will hurt financially. So if I want to shut someone up, then I am working against the principle of freedom of thought.

I think Jo Ann's last comment is more or less on the right track. A boycott is a valuable form of free speech, as is a show of support. I disagree with Norm's initial suggestion that boycotts are categorically bad -- many boycotts protest something that has nothing to do with speech.

It's a little grayer when you start talking about boycotts of something based on a message, since the one offering the boycotted product is simply exercising their right to free speech. I still think that sort of boycott is a form of free speech though. Imagine if the speech were something that was widely recognized as offensive -- maybe white supremacist or something. I would want to be able to organize a boycott of that product, while at the same time upholding the person's right to free speech (leaving aside, for the moment, the tricky issue of hate speech). I would not, however, be within my rights to send the supremacists death threats.

I guess the point is that an important part of free speech is the freedom of others to disagree, making strong statements to that effect (so long as the disagreement is directed at the message and is not a threat toward the person who said it).

Finally, I'm not sure I agree with Jo Ann that an individual's choice cannot be considered a boycott. Granted, no one will know it's a boycott unless you tell them, but it's the same principle as voting, for example. A group of people with a shared view don't necessarily have to communicate with each other to send a message; they can just make their individual decisions, and the result will be seen.

Me thinks I see drivel. If one chooses to, say, not buy a CD for political reasons, and then advertises that reason in the hope that others will agree and also not buy that CD, then one is also exercising their right of free speech (effectiveness is a different matter, of course). More fundamentally, boycotts are nothing more than an effort to organize and demonstrate -- to affect change. The logic involved is not so dissimilar from that of political campaigning and fighting, or for that matter, efforts to organize unions. Everyone is always free to ignore freedom of speech used to pursue, say, boycotts. But saying those who exercise their freedom of speech to attempt boycotts don't support freedom of speech, is (to quote Harry Frankfurt) bullshit.

Well put, Ashley. Certainly better put than what I tried to say in a contorted and long-winded fashion above. :-)

Let's see if your boss tells you to quit promoting a political candidate or some other lawful speech or lose your job, I'm assuming all would condemn it. So lets say you own a small business and you are also politically active and members of the opposing party come to you and say either stop your active support of candidate or cause or we'll organize a boycott. If you join the boycott are you still a supporter of free speech. The principle extends to even those with substantial assets. Are you still with me? If you punish someone's lawful speech by harming them financially. You are no supporter of free speech. Just for the record I don't extend this to corporate speech which I don't think is entitled to the same protections individuals should be afforded.

So your point is not about whether these boycotts should be allowed or even protected, but whether they're a decent thing to do? If that's what you're getting at it seems like a case by case thing. It also seems like it has more to do with the "content" of the boycott than the act of boycotting itself.

Surely you recognize the need for boycotts under some circumstances, don't you? You aren't condemning boycotts in general, are you?

Let's say I decide never to patronize Coors or Domino's because the CEOs of those companies are contributors to anti-abortion organizations or advocate breaking down barriers between church and state. Let's say I tell my friends that I'm doing so in the hope that they will follow my lead, and in the (overly optimistic) hope that word will somehow get back to the CEOs. Does that mean I don't support their right to have the opinions they have? In fact, this is a true scenario and I do support their right to have those opinions, though I strongly disagree with them. Maybe it's especially tricky because they are using their positions, and money gained through the very purchases which I refuse to make, to advance their agendas.

I'm not sure how this is different from the Dixie Chicks' scenario. I think it's probably totally fine if people don't want to buy their records because of their political positions. It's certainly not fine for those people to send them death threats. I'm sorry but I can't get behind a statement that not spending money is somehow against the ideal of free speech. So long as it's a set of individual decisions, and there's no threat or coercion involved in the boycott, I can't find fault with it.

Norm, your first sentence seems to stand on its own, so I’ll ignore it. In the second and third sentences, I’m having trouble with the word “you.” “You” are the owner of the small business, and “you” are being threatened with a boycott. But, “you” are also the one who may or may not join the boycott? My confusion aside:

Specifics for these matters will be everything. If someone comes and threatens your small business with a boycott, you may have an actionable matter. You would also be free to comply or not comply. You =would= be free to do something like put a sign in the window saying “Because I support impeachment of GW, Republican thugs are threatening me with a boycott.” Both would be exercises of free speech. You could also exercise your right to free speech by calling the local newspaper or television station or blogger and attempting to get the matter covered by the media.

I suspect that you are conflating matters relating to free speech with other “goal oriented behavior.” When people try to get things done, they try to get things done. They do not, as they work toward their goal, step back and ask themselves, “philosophically, are my actions in line with my support for free speech, democracy, and Amurka?” Philosophical support for free speech and what one is attempting to get done are two different matters, really. We’re speaking abstractly here. We need to look at specifics. Are the KKK supporters of free speech? I’m fairly certain we can say no. Did “United Farm Workers” (UFW) support free speech when they organized the successful boycott of grapes? Seems they certainly used it! But they weren't trying to blunt anyone's free speech. The Dixie Chicks? Seems the boycott attempt is actually causing the DCs to exercise their freedom of speech more than ever! If all your employees walk out of your duct tape manufacturing plant back in Ohio (like THAT will happen...) because you give half your profits to Bush, would they be opposing free speech? You might want to view it that way, but I would instead say that they simply want a change in leadership and will do what they must to get it.

This suggests another aspect to the matter: since SCOTUS has ruled that giving money to candidates can't be regulated because it would be interference with free speech (something like that), do those who want to limit campaign contributions oppose free speech? Hmm... Shouldn't we strive to remove ALL limits on campaign contributions in order to maximize free speech? Hmm, again...

By the way, I buy as much gasoline as I can from Citgo, and always let the propagators of the “boycott Citgo” emails know it. But then, I also sneak the occasional Western Bacon Cheeseburger from Carl’s Jr., in spite of my wife’s complaint that they’re Republicans. Even worse -- I secretly harbor a desire for the 30” Sanyo HDTV Wal-mart has for $472. I haven’t bought it yet, but the living room is mighty big, and that 24” TV is pretty far away, and $472 is at the extreme upper limit of what I would be willing to pay for a TV. Doing the right thing every damned time can sure be tiresome.

I think we need to distinguish between corporate speech and individual free speech. The purpose of free speech is to encourage debate and the exchange of ideas. The fact that corporation have the same speech rights as individuals is a travesty. It is probably the single greatest threat to our democracy. Now on to individual free speech. As a practical matter a large corporation or a rich individual or a group of like minded individuals can quash the speech of any single person simply by attacking them financially. A threat to their source of income, a threat they don't have the resources to fight, and even if they can acquire such resources it is often more practical to just keep their mouths shut. Anyone that would participate in such schemes to stifle an individuals free speech in my opinion doesn't really understand the concept of free speech. Charlie Reese has it exactly right. If you punish people through physical threats or financial threats you don't really believe in free speech.

It wasn’t just these 3 women who were hurt by this boycott, death threats, etc. A popular band can be viewed as a corporation. In fact big acts represent several corporations & hundreds of individuals relying on the bands success for their livelihoods (in full or in part).

Based on Norm’s corporate vs. individual position, does this make the situation more acceptable or less?

Ashley, I would hope that most people consider the means used to reach their ends. Also the KKK relies heavily on their right to free speech.

When you say a large corporation or rich individual can quash the speech of a single person by attacking them financially, what are you referring to? Do you mean an employer threatening an employee's job based on the political stance of the latter? That's bad, sure, but I don't see what that has to do with boycotts.

I also agree that physical threats are not free expression, but again, boycotts are not a physical threat.

It just seems like you're stating your position over and over again without really arguing for it... I'm sure you have a point which is just not coming across clearly. Can I ask a direct question? Do you categorically oppose boycotts? Or just in circumstances where the reason for the boycott is some particular act of speech by the boycottee?

There's also a part of your initial distinction between boycotts and shows of support that I don't think has been brought up yet. Given that people have finite financial resources, doesn't showing support by buying one product almost always come hand in hand with not buying another? If I want a pizza on a given occasion, I can either show support for my local pizza place or show opposition to Dominos, but either way I'm buying the same thing. Right?

Hi Norm,

In these examples of protesting through boycott, is it also incorrect to boycott a corporation that is acting in a manner you find destructive? [ex: a chemical plant that is polluting]

This is an odd moment, because while I believe so strongly in Free Speech that I will fight for and encourage the right of neo-nazis (or neo-cons) to express themselves in any forum, it seems that bad corporations only change their behavior through financial threat.

Is it then ok to attack a business for its actions [polluting] but not the individuals running it for their opinion [I think polluting is OK]?

This gets slippery in a hurry.

++++

In this country, our greatest asset is diversity: of culture, of thought, of speech. Arguing to change things is how we came to be and is the food of a growing democracy. To limit free speech is to act toward the slow and certain death of our great nation.

Sorry to comment again so quickly on the heels of another comment, but I just read the Reese quote again. He doesn't specifically refer to boycotts, but simply says that trying to silence someone is anti-free-speech. It could be that what you took from it, Norm, is in the context somewhere, but I don't see that in the quote. It's ambiguous... I suppose you could construe a boycott as an attempt to punish or silence, but I somehow doubt that's what he meant.

What do people think about people asking radio stations to "ban" Dixie Chicks' songs? It's disturbing, for sure, but is it really just another form of boycott? As much as I hate the idea of any kind of censorship, it's hard to argue that a private business can't make the decision to offer or not offer certain products or signals if they judge doing so to be best for business. I suppose it's a different matter entirely from whether a business should eschew the (perceived) "bottom line" in favor of doing what's "right"...

Just wanted to point that out.

Boycott corporations all you want for the actions they engage in that you're opposed to, but don't punish individuals for their opinions . It is a little tricky, but for example I wouldn't boycott a company because of something political their CEO said unless his speech was in behalf of the corporation.

Thanks for clarifying, Norm. That makes more sense.

My sense is that if a CEO said something that wasn't in behalf of the corporation, I'd probably take it nto account when choosing among corporations to patronize (e.g. phone companies) -- not as a motivation for a boycott per se, but as a factor that would weigh in with various other factors. Because again, choosing to support one company often goes hand in hand with not supporting another.

I agree that a boycott is a type of free speech. However, I do think it's childish to boycott a musician, actor, writer because of their (relatively mainstream*) political beliefs, especially when it doesn't even come up in their work. The Dixie Chicks' music, until now, was mostly a-political. There was some cultural commentary, but that was about it.

*I'm more comfortable with boycotts of the work of extreme racists, misogynists, homophobes, especially since they usually can't seem to keep from putting that crap in their work.

beowulfkg: agreed, the KKK makes use of their right to free speech. But they do not support that right for others. Indeed, they have been known to kill those attempting free speech, black or white.

Norm: sorry, but I just can't see any grounds in this thread for making generalizations (nor axioms) of any kind with regard to who supports free speech and who does not. That said, please do carry on...

Ashley