One can believe it's protected and still think secondary boycotts are corrosive of civil society, as CS depends on willingness to deal with those who suffer from ourselves.
Isn’t calling for a consumer boycott and urging private companies not to do business with groups consumers find objectionable protected First Amendment activity?https://twitter.com/jimgeraghty/status/967443113718501376 …
-
-
-
We can "deal' with people with dislike in numerous ways without spending our limited funds and using our limited time with certain groups that do things particularly offensive to us.
-
Boycotting businesses that refused to serve blacks, e.g., comes off as less "corrosive to a civil society" than shunning every person who believed in segregation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I wonder if they would support sponsors of cigarette TV, encouraging young people to smoke as well.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That would be super-relevant if the GOVERNMENT were trying to prevent consumers from organizing such boycotts and bans. There is no 1st Amendment right to immunity from criticism for advocating this kind of virtue-signaling crap...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also, isn't this a perfect example of "letting the market decide"?
-
Asking companies not to offer discounts to a maligned organization is not the same as censorship. Banning NRATV is suspiciously close to censorship.
-
Banning?
-
Forced removal?
-
Not forced
-
Strongly encouraged? Either way telling them they can't spout their nonsense or pressuring amazon to remove their channel is a zero sum game...it'll just have them pounding on the second and first amendments.
-
You know what I've noticed? Making everything a zero sum game is the hallmark of petty nasty people, no matter what...
-
At some point we have to ignore it and speak up despite the ensuing tantrum.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
No, only if you’re protesting the stuff they agree with. The rest is tyranny. Something something, Founding Fathers.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
No One has to buy from anyone they don’t want to
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It seems to be the epitome of what the First Amendment was intended to protect, to be frank
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.