Routine Shootings at US Schools and Universities Megathread.

[Admiral Yi]

The question I often ask myself is:  would I be okay with this if the tactic were used against gay rights supporters back when gay rights weren't so popular?  It's good that in current times, the power of the advertising dollar is on the side of the good guys when push comes to shove, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.

It's a tool that can be used be good or evil causes, but is not inherently good or evil itself.

[Eddie Teach]

My disagreement was that his choice of tactics(boycott) was somehow a noble response. If you want to argue his choice of sides gives him the high road, that's a different matter.

Personally I think you can - and are - making a legitimate argument. Conversely, I think there's also a legitimate argument to be made that your character is more valuable than your sway with advertisers.

I think people already love or hate Ingraham, so her character was a less vulnerable target than her ad dollars.

[DGuller]

The question I often ask myself is:  would I be okay with this if the tactic were used against gay rights supporters back when gay rights weren't so popular?  It's good that in current times, the power of the advertising dollar is on the side of the good guys when push comes to shove, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.

Personally I think that politics is a rough and tumble game and that one should not get too precious about it. There are things that are beyond the pale, but hitting advertising dollars is - IMO - a perfectly legitimate technique. It's unpleasant when it's happening to you - and should be countered to the best of your ability when it happens - but there's nothing inherently wrong about it.

It's a fair point.  There was definitely a "roughness gap" between conservatives and liberals over the past few decades, which allowed conservatives to pull out some victories from the jaws of defeat, and we're all worse off as a result.

[merithyn]

Let's be real about this. The kids can call for anything. In the end, it's up to the companies to decide how to respond. In this case, eight out of 12 companies agreed that she went beyond the pale in her show.

That's free market coupled with free speech. It's always been the American way.

[garbon]

So he called for her to lose 12 advertisers and she has now lost 12.

[jimmy olsen]

Shooting at Youtube HQ.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/us/youtube-shooting.html

I wonder if it has anything to do with the NRA's call for it's members to "rise up" against them

https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/981282612512686082

[Eddie Teach]

Who is stinchfield1776 and what entitles him to speak for the nra?

[Solmyr]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43638221

Apparently she was angry at Youtube for demonetizing her videos.

[Eddie Teach]

"Vegan bodybuilder" right there you know she's crazy.

[derspiess]

Shooting at Youtube HQ.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/us/youtube-shooting.html

I wonder if it has anything to do with the NRA's call for it's members to "rise up" against them

https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/981282612512686082

Guess not.  Sorry Tim, I know you had your hopes up for this one

[crazy canuck]

So he's going after 3rd parties who are just trying to reach potential customers.

Is that a bad thing?

I'm not entirely sure, but I have reservations about it.  It seems like a back-door attempt to restrict free speech.  Even if the speech in this case was a classless bit of crap better suited to being said by a 3rd rate stand-up comic than to someone who claims to be a newsperson.

Free speech does not include freedom from others being convince they should not support what is said.

So instead of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", it's "I disapprove of what you say, and will therefore attempt to deprive you of your livelihood"?
 
In this particular case, what she said was a personal attack on him, so I suppose it's fair enough that he responds by attacking her personal ability to make a living.  But what if he were calling for a boycott against someone who merely stated a disagreement with his views?  It doesn't seem like a good way to advance debate.

The freedom to express views includes the freedom to denounce the views of others in the strongest terms which includes calling for a boycott.  Freedom of expression does not, and should not, be constrained by polite debating rules. 

Now it may be that some take the view that calling for a boycott was not appropriate.  That is also freedom of expression in action.  But it is odd to say that exercising a right to denounce a viewpoint is itself a violation of freedom of expression. 

[derspiess]

CC-- Along similar lines, what do you think about the heckler's veto?  Does it also not violate freedom of expression? 

[crazy canuck]

CC-- Along similar lines, what do you think about the heckler's veto?  Does it also not violate freedom of expression?

Yes, I think that is clearly a violation of expressive rights. 

[Valmy]

The freedom to express views includes the freedom to denounce the views of others in the strongest terms which includes calling for a boycott.  Freedom of expression does not, and should not, be constrained by polite debating rules. 

Now it may be that some take the view that calling for a boycott was not appropriate.  That is also freedom of expression in action.  But it is odd to say that exercising a right to denounce a viewpoint is itself a violation of freedom of expression. 

He said it was a bad way to advance a debate not that he should be arrested for calling for a boycott.

I mean you are free to not debate people but instead go on the offensive and try to destroy them. That is what Laura Ingraham was trying to do after all.

[crazy canuck]

The freedom to express views includes the freedom to denounce the views of others in the strongest terms which includes calling for a boycott.  Freedom of expression does not, and should not, be constrained by polite debating rules. 

Now it may be that some take the view that calling for a boycott was not appropriate.  That is also freedom of expression in action.  But it is odd to say that exercising a right to denounce a viewpoint is itself a violation of freedom of expression. 

He said it was a bad way to advance a debate not that he should be arrested for calling for a boycott.

I mean you are free to not debate people but instead go on the offensive and try to destroy them. That is what Laura Ingraham was trying to do after all.

Valmy, were you intending to respond to what I said?