Subj : Re: Computer Kits
To   : boraxman
From : Jeff
Date : Mon Jan 31 2022 00:15:31

On 31 Jan 2022, boraxman said the following...
 bo>  Je> That's a boycott. There are several companies I won't do business wit
 bo>  Je> because of their professed beliefs. Now, you might ask, why are compa
 bo>  Je> professing their beliefs anyway? I really don't know, but something m
 bo>  Je> be compelling their owners/CEOs to make those beliefs known.
 bo> As is your right, and I defend your right to do so.  However, if you
 bo> decide that you are obligated to destroy a company because of their
 bo> beliefs, that is coercion and bullying.

How is deciding not to do business with a company due to their beliefs
different from being obligated to destroy a company because of their beliefs?
One does what is within one's power to do, regardless of the end goal.

 bo> beliefs, that is coercion and bullying.  You have a right to express
 bo> your thoughts, your opinions, why you aren't a customer, but an
 bo> organised boycott goes from speech to political action, and political
 bo> action shouldn't be used to coerce and compel.

And why not, exactly?

 bo>  Je> Again, freedom of expression does not guarantee freedom from
 bo>  Je> consequences.
 bo> Yes, BUT one cannot take retribution against another, and pass it off as
 bo> a "consequence".  That is mafia like.  There are many who bully others,
 bo> and claim it is just a "consequence".

A consequence is a consequence. "Mafia like" implies organized crime, which
implies criminality. A boycott is not a criminal activity.

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

I do not condone firebombings. However, I suspect that the consequences we're
discussing here are of a decidedly less criminal nature.

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

Sure, why not?

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

Nope. That is not the nature of "free speech."

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

If the "powers that be" are the government, then yes, one is protected.
Otherwise, no.

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

Protected from the government, yes. Protected from public backlash, no.

Jeff.

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

.