Subj : Re: Computer Kits
To   : Jeff
From : boraxman
Date : Mon Jan 31 2022 18:57:16

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


As is your right, and I defend your right to do so.  However, if you decide
that you are obligated to destroy a company because of their beliefs, that is
coercion and bullying.  You have a right to express your thoughts, your
opinions, why you aren't a customer, but an organised boycott goes from
speech to political action, and political action shouldn't be used to coerce
and compel.

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

Yes, BUT one cannot take retribution against another, and pass it off as a "consequence".  That is mafia like.  There are many who bully others, and
claim it is just a "consequence".

If you lie about someone, and the sue you for defamation, that is a natural consequence.  If you say that Trump is not a good president, or that
immigration reform is needed, and someone decides to firebomb your house, that is NOT a consequence.

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


Your choice, as long as you respect the right of a company not to make those social statements, or to refuse to do so.

 Je> I don't either. In the case of social media, though, I think the
 Je> self-regulation that we're seeing is an attempt to avoid a) liability,
 Je> and b) government regulation.
 Je> 
 Je> There are also laws against violence, libel, and slander. But in general,
 Je> freedom is nowhere guaranteed to be risk-free.
 Je> 


It does need to be protected though.  Freedom of speech is to a degree,
freedom of consequence.  If people are able to freely "punish" you, then you in practice don't have free speech.

All supression of speech is through "consequences".  You say something that upsets the powers that be, and you bear "consequences" for your actions.

Freedom of speech doesn't absolve you of the DIRECT negative effects, but if
it cannot be demonstrated there was harm (libel, defamation, fraud conspiracy to commit a crime), then your speech is protected.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/11/06 (Linux/64)
 * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

.