Soon Mr Smith's histrionic pleadings will reach a sonic level that only dogs and dolphins will be able to hear. As in "dog whistle" territory. And one more thing, Mr Smith, Boycotting is the AMERICAN WAY, and always has been. I smell the stench of Union Busting in this writing. Thank goodness Mr Smith didn't over-reach and call boycotters "commies", though the stench of McCarthy sneaks in, but he DID over-reach in many ways, here's how:
This is an op-ed piece that ran May 3, 2012 in the Wall Street Journal. A version of this article appeared May 3, 2012, on page A15 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Welcome to Boycott Nation.
By BRADLEY A. SMITH
It’s becoming hard to know with whom one can do business.
Partially True, especially with so many corporations controlling the media, along with most of what the American Public, sees, hears, smells, feels and fears.
These Corporations also include so many endless subsidiaries that one never knows which company has produced the goods they are purchasing, whether that company's environmental practices have led to the poisoning of children, or literally set a river on fire. Many refuse to buy from Walmart for a number of reasons once made aware (and being made aware is key for all consumers, especially those who don't want their children's health compromised) of the potential for purchasing say, fish from China with enough lead content to shield one from radiation, or baby pajamas that burn with more vigor than a dried up Christmas tree in a trailer.
This is ostensibly why there are consumer protections in place, something the majority of Americans are for. But let's ask this question, "If we demand as a nation, protection from Toxic Foods, why not include protection from Toxic Speech (Hate Speech as employed by Rush Limbaugh)?" Certainly everyone respects the First Amendment, it's crucial to our very freedom, but there are also laws against, for example, shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre. Sedition is also on the books, and was used by Mr Lincoln to great effect. Perhaps those laws should be employed to remove Mr Limbaugh from using the airwaves OWNED BY THE PUBLIC, and NOT Corporations (who rent them), especially since Mr Limbaugh continually attacks the President (with racial slurs to boot) on the Armed Forces Radio Network, for which he is paid, oddly enough, BY our Govt.
Mr Limbaugh, like anyone else, is not afforded a First Amendment RIGHT to spew hate from hundreds of radio stations. It's not Free Speech, it is NOT protected, it is Bought and Paid For Speech, with OUR Dollars. Let's make that clear.
We’ve been told that if you don’t like what Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck says on the radio, you should not only not listen to their shows, you should boycott businesses that advertise on their shows.
Sure, change the channel, we don't have to watch porn either, should that be allowed? Is it free speech as well Mr Smith?
Uh, TOLD? No. We are URGED and Informed, which is Key. Would Mr Smith have it any other way? Why is it that Mr Smith is all for Mr Limbaugh spewing his peculiar and destructive brand of hate speech, but those that wish to get the word out to others of the dangers of Mr Limbaugh's hate speech, those who offer the public the CHOICE of Boycotting should, in his own words, "Shut Up"? It appears Mr Smith is targeting boycotters, effectively functioning as an arm of the corporations and right wing in his article, with the intention of telling Boycotters to "Shut Up". Not going to happen.
Not by a long shot. We've just started.
Social media has changed everything, perhaps Mr Smith has heard of it. Never in history has it been so easy to organize, inform and locate like-minded people in Real Time, beyond the reach of corporate owned propaganda, such as this silly tripe from the Wall Street Journal. Informed Americans, who vote with their dollars scare the bejesus out of these Corporations. Their baldfaced lies are exposed in seconds, cutting through years of corporate propaganda like a surgical knife. Instant exposure, and on a local level, both miraculous and dangerous to their bottom line. Mr Smith shows us they're still playing catch up, even after the lessons of Gandhi and British textile boycotts. ---
We are told that if you don’t like the activities of the American Legislative Exchange Council—a nonpartisan nonprofit that provides a meeting ground for conservative state legislators to share ideas—you should boycott companies that support the council.
ALEC is Hardly nonpartisan, nice that he included "conservative" state legislators, since as the body of ALEC is mostly made up of radical right wingers, and to a majority of progressives ALEC is a vile organization that hardly just "shares ideas" like some sort of "think tank", they actively undermine the very freedoms of this country, and to great effect. They are an arm of the right wing that needs to be exorcised, of that, many are in total agreement. Nice that Mr Smith describes them as relatively harmless, uh huh.
Target Corp. became a boycott target after it contributed to a group that supported Tom Emmer, a pro-business candidate for governor of Minnesota who also happened to oppose same-sex marriage. After California voters passed Proposition 8 (restricting same-sex marriage), boycotters swung into action.
Holding someone responsible is the American Way. Is Mr Smith against those who exercise their First Amendment Right to INFORM others and to use the information gleaned to expose those who promote Anti-Gay measures? We can agree to disagree, but in the end the PUBLIC wields the ultimate power of the consumer dollar, NOT the Corporations, or right wing miscreants, I meant other right wing miscreants, not Mr Smith, who I'm sure is a fine person, and really good at propagandistic techniques.
Though boycott culture is largely a left-wing phenomenon, it’s by no means a left-wing monopoly.
What? Is Mr Smith calling Gandhi "a left wing phenomenon"? Does he grasp history in the least? He went to law school? Does he mention Unions, which have saved this country from child labor, given us 40 hour work weeks, protect workers, vacations, insurance, etc? No, he does not, he knows as well as anyone that a Strike is effectively a boycott, and Unions made America strong and able to compete with the world, forced corporations to treat workers HUMANELY, where they otherwise abjectly refused.
All these examples are what are called “secondary boycotts”—attempts to influence the actions of the target by exerting pressure on a third party. Secondary boycotts should not be confused with primary boycotts. A decision not to patronize a business that discriminates on the basis of race is an example of a primary boycott. Primary boycotts—used to great effect during the Civil Rights Movement—have a long and often laudatory history.
Seriously, you are bringing RACE into this argument? Have you Listened to Rush Limbaugh sing "The Magic Negro", or talk about the BONE in Obama's Nose? Do you really believe there is a equivalency between the Civil Rights movement and Rush Limbaugh singing "The Magic Negro" where children can hear it?
But secondary boycotts have long been recognized as harmful to civil society. They rend the social fabric by making it difficult for people to simply live their lives.
Does "simply live their lives" include corporations poisoning the populace, either with products or Limbaugh's toxic misogynistic, racist epithets for which he is PAID? As for rending the social fabric, Limbaugh continually attacking everyone that disagrees with him, with vile perniciousness, rends the social fabric constantly, destroying any chance of sane exchange, filling minds with hate - all PAID FOR. No Longer.
The boycott of contributors to the American Legislative Exchange Council, for example, came about because state lawmakers who are members of the council introduced bills requiring voters to present a photo ID before voting. Polls consistently show majority support for voter ID laws, but such laws are strongly opposed by some on the left, who argue that they disenfranchise voters. -- If secondary boycotts become the norm, supporters of voter ID—whom, if we are to believe the polls, vastly outnumber critics—could decide to boycott these companies.
Gosh, Freedom to VOTE may run rampant, oh, the horror. Once again, playing the
race card, Mr Smith, it's disgusting at this point. People DIED for our right to vote, our troops DIED for free speech, but not in defense of Hate Speech. The very troops who take an OATH to DEFEND the President and our Nation are being subjected to treasonous remarks by Rush Limbaugh on a daily basis. There is No Excuse for this. Informed voters are taking action, and again, VOTING with their dollars. Not a ragtag army of discontents, but actual human beings who refuse to allow obstruction and hate to destroy the "social fabric" of this nation, and are doing something about it.
You do great disservice to the Civil Rights Movement, in fact, you are belittling some rather large and illustrious movements in this article, including the drunken insanity of McCarthy who destroyed so many lives with his horrifying witch hunt. Sir, I frankly find these comparisons disgusting and disrespectful. Scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Soon everyone is boycotting everyone, trade is restricted, political tensions increase, and life is generally unpleasant. Secondary boycotts create an environment in which political conflict, rather than peaceful trade, dominates our relationships.
Political Conflict is being created by boycotters? Watched the news lately? The GOP has done nothing but OBSTRUCT and LIE to destroy the Presidency. Rush Limbaugh basically represents the head of the GOP, John Boehner, in the process of destroying America's credit rating (not boycotters), first showed HIS budget plan to Rush Limbaugh, proving that Limbaugh is the heart and head of the GOP, not even the Speaker of the House has Limbaugh's power. If anything the GOP is Boycotting the President.
Boycotts are particularly unattractive when intended to squelch speech. In each of the previous examples, boycotts were organized to harm the target economically so that the target would pressure the original speaker to, well, shut up. The power of ideas is abandoned for the power of economic coercion.
Nope. Mr Smith has it completely reversed - The Power of IDEAS are FOCUSED Via Economic coercion to Correct Harm. Just like radiation in cancer treatment. And Rush Limbaugh is a cancer in the American body.
One boycott often leads to another, creating a damaging snowball effect. For example, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin is asking fellow conservatives to boycott companies that succumb to liberal boycotts.
Anyone that uses Michelle Malkin as an example needs to rethink their parameters. Is this a Joke? But you're right, just this morning I boycotted my toast just to make my coffee jealous. Now you're just being silly.
The other day a friend, a businessman in Wisconsin, raised the question of whether he should hire someone who had signed a petition to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. He had no quarrel with the applicant, who seemed qualified. Any decision not to hire would be, in effect, a secondary boycott of the applicant. This type of thinking will almost certainly lead to the stifling of many valuable political ideas and innovations.
At this point it appears Mr Smith has completely run out of ideas, metaphors, memes, etc. Oh Noes! What's next? Even at a MOLECULAR Level boycotters make every one haz a sad.
Which brings us to the demands for more disclosure of political speech. Normally, Americans have a constitutional right to anonymous political activity.
This is laughable, and could only be intended for the filthy rich, who know better. Next up, Mr Smith dog whistles a jaunty little McCarthy tune.. watch for it.
Indeed, the organizers of boycotts do not have to disclose their financiers. In the 1950s and ’60s, protection of privacy and anonymity of donors was instrumental to the ability of the NAACP to operate in the South.
Yes, because, golly gee, those people could HAVE BEEN KILLED, and they were. How? By HATE SPEECH which initiated direct action, which resulted in Death. How many boycotters will die before Rush Limbaugh is forced to pack it in? Zero? Correct, Mr Smith. Oh, by the way, those laws protected The Man. And you went to law school? This is not an equivalency argument, again, this is a joke, right?
But in 1976 the Supreme Court allowed the government to require limited disclosure of political campaign giving. Increasingly, however, mandatory disclosure of political activity is not being used for any of the three legitimate state interests recognized by the court—exposing corruption, assisting in enforcement of other campaign-finance laws, or providing information that can help the public evaluate the message. Rather, compulsory political disclosure is increasingly used for organizing secondary boycotts of speakers. As one anti-Prop 8 activist cheered, “Years ago we would never have been able to get a blacklist that quickly!”
Mr Smith fails to include a more recent Supreme Court Ruling since 1976, say the Ruling allowing Corporations (world wide) to freely give huge amounts of undisclosed funding to anyone running for office, including funding that comes from Communist or Terroristic nations, like the Chinese. Imagine a President installed by funding from China, Russia, or Pepsi Co.
Let's not forget the Supreme Court ruling that MONEY IS FREE SPEECH. Oops.)
People have a right not to do business with companies or individuals. But blacklists—never a healthy part of political debate—endanger the very commerce that enriches us all.
BLACKLISTS? You are going to argue equivalency between a Mom who doesn't want to hear women called FemiNazis, or for her child to hear Rush sing "The Magic Negro" at an Airport or mall, with McCarthy branding "jews, liberals & creatives" COMMIES, and destroying their LIVES along with the "social fabric" of America? Oh Please.
How nice that someone who writes for the Wall Street Journal, the rag for the 1%'rs, to ALLOW that we can refuse to SUPPORT with OUR DOLLARS a racist, misogynist, treasonous spewer of hate, who uses OUR own Tax dollars to turn troops against a President and the very country they've taken an Oath to Defend. Specious, silly arguments that somehow if we hurt Rush Limbaugh's non constitutional "right" to attack America, that it will inconvenience Big Business. I ask again, this is a Joke, right?
We know it's not a joke. They're scared, or they wouldn't be writing this drivel. Let's hear what Gandhi had to say once again:
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
Thank you Mr Gandhi, will do.
JOIN US! http://www.stoprush.net
Political Satirist and longtime Activist Micheal Stinson (aka Symbolman) is the co-author of "Going Rouge: The Sarah Palin Rogue Coloring & Activity Book" as well as TBTM's latest book, a Lewis Carroll rewrite: "Malice in Wonderland: A Tea Party Fable" http://www.tbtmmedia.com/...