For the record, there is no boycott of Ozzie Guillen that I know of, but if there was, would you argue any of the following:
one:
The better course of action is to call out the reason why [the] statements were considered to be so inflammatory [...] and to continue to raise our own voices, to use our own free speech to bring attention to this and encourage a positive change. All of that will be better than simply attempting to quiet someone’s voice. I wouldn’t want that to happen to me. Surely I shouldn’t then ask that for someone else, especially when I completely disagree. What better defense you can give to someone if instead of arguing back you simply do everything you can to stop them from speaking?
two:
it will give [companies] one more reason to avoid political speech (or anything else) that would rile viewers and risk unhappy advertisers. Not that they need another reason.
three:
To me, pressuring advertisers to abandon a [personality] is a mistaken approach. A shortcut. An exercise in coercion rather than persuasion. I'm glad it failed. I don't want him to go out that way. My dislike of boycotts is general. Public discourse is most likely to thrive when advertising dollars flow to mass-media programs based only on the size of their audience, for once advertisers face boycotts based on content, it becomes difficult to broadcast anything that any interest group finds offensive. What remains is programming that avoids controversial subjects whenever possible. Contested ideas that might benefit from the crucible of public discourse are excluded from it. Dissent from widely held social norms becomes impossible. And society is shaped not by persuasion, but by whoever is most adept at eliciting in others a sense of grievance. Boycotts inevitably result in terrible incentives.
and
four:
I don’t like it that people are made to disappear when they say something or people try to make them disappear when they say something you don’t like. That’s America. Sometimes you’re made to feel uncomfortable, OK? I’m not defending him. I’m defending living in a country where people don’t have to be afraid that they might go out of the bounds for one minute. Do we all want to be talking like White House spokesmen?”
Let me give you a quote from the ACLU, liberals,” he said. “[T]he ACLU — what more liberal bastion is there than that? ‘It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something that many find reasonable, but the defense of freedom of speech is more critical when the message is something that most people find repulsive.
By now, you're probably getting my point.These statements were all about the Limbaugh boycott. The last one by Bill Maher himself, whose condemnation of the condemnations of Ozzie Guillen was
much celebrated here yesterday.
Here's my view - boycotts and protests are also speech. Montgomery anyone? I support the Limbaugh boycott. I do not support the Guillen protests. But not because I think there is something wrong in principle with the protests. I think they are a misplaced reaction to the comments of a professional buffoon (Guillen.) Limbaugh is an important figure in our political discourse. Ozzie Guillen is a Latino minstrel show. One merits protests. The other merits disinterest.
But people disagree. I'm certainly not going to condemn anyone for disagreeing with my assessment of the 2 situations. I'm not going to say boycotts and protests are only a legitimate tactic when I agree with the goal of the protests.
Bill Maher is against all protests and boycotts. I don't find that position tenable or persuasive. YMMV. But I don't think one can logically hold the view that protests and/or boycotts are legitimate only when you agree with them.