Subj : Re: Computer Kits
To   : boraxman
From : Jeff
Date : Sun Jan 30 2022 10:59:27

On 30 Jan 2022, boraxman said the following...
 bo>  Je> Then perhaps a public forum such as social media is not the place to 
 bo>  Je> this discussion.
 bo> I never considered a BBS to be public social media.  It certainly wasn't
 bo> a world-wide easily accessible record in the 90s.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to our discussion, but the hypothetical discussion
which could result in one facing consequences later for things said.

 bo>  Je> When it comes to violence, yes. Words and boycotts are not violent,
 bo>  Je> though. Other people have the same right to speak their minds that yo
 bo>  Je> do, and can choose where and how to spend their money.
 bo> They have that right, but you don't have the right (I believe) to
 bo> organize economic damage to punish people for their beliefs.

That's a boycott. There are several companies I won't do business with
because of their professed beliefs. Now, you might ask, why are companies
professing their beliefs anyway? I really don't know, but something must be
compelling their owners/CEOs to make those beliefs known.

 bo> If you don't want to buy from a company because they aren't making a
 bo> statement on some social issues you want them to make, then fine, but
 bo> when you start to organise action to try and economically damage them,
 bo> you are infringing upon their freedom of expression.

Again, freedom of expression does not guarantee freedom from consequences.

As a side note, I don't boycott companies for not making social statements. I
boycott them for making social statements that seek to marginalize others.
And as a side-side note, I'll also patronize businesses that make inclusive
social statements. In general, I'm neutral toward companies that don't make
social statements.

 bo> Companies shouldn't be making social and political statements anyway. 
 bo> Why companies feel they need to be agents of social change, I don't know.

I don't either. In the case of social media, though, I think the
self-regulation that we're seeing is an attempt to avoid a) liability, and b)
government regulation.

 bo>  Je> Whose freedom are you advocating to limit?
 bo> No ones.  I believe that in order to have freedom, you need to be
 bo> protected from action taken against you.  The first amendment isn't
 bo> strong enough.

There are also laws against violence, libel, and slander. But in general,
freedom is nowhere guaranteed to be risk-free.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
 * Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (21:1/180)

.