dianaiad
Well-Known Member
When the idea behind the boycott is 'I won't shop in your store until you agree with me..." that is extortion. It's saying "when I see that sign I like, I'll shop in your store. "
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Local Effort To Boycott Businesses Owned By Trump Supporters Brings Strong Response From GOP
- Thread starter Cooky
- Start date
When the idea behind the boycott is 'I won't shop in your store until you agree with me..." that is extortion. It's saying "when I see that sign I like, I'll shop in your store. "
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but no. We have too many court cases which state categorically that speech which deliberately causes harm to the target is no longer free speech. It's actionable. A baker can sue a college which promotes a boycott for the purpose of harming the bakery....when it KNEW the reason for doing so was bogus.
In other words, a lie probably isn't 'free speech.'
And can get you sued. Big time. That's why there are libel laws. Now it happens that the left is in full agreement of this idea...freedom of religion is supposed to be supported in the same amendment that free speech is, but if a photographer refuses to 'do' a same sex wedding because of HIS religious beliefs, it's the photographer who gets sued, and I haven't seen a single leftist who thought that it was wrong to abrogate that freedom of religion.
In fact, it seems that it's only wrong, in their eyes, to abrogate any right that gores THEIR oxen...they can go sticking it to anybody they want, themselves.
No. I find it abominable for any group to boycott a business because IT is exercising freedom of speech, threatening to harm it and shut it down BECAUSE it dares to express an opinion opposing that of the boycotters.....and then defend that action because IT has the right of free speech. Since when is it good to use your freedom of speech to force someone else to shut up?
That's one thing. The other thing is this: if a boycott is organized because of a lie, like the one done by Oberlin College against that bakery, where that business was almost destroyed because of accusations of racism that were utterly false....and that the leaders KNEW were false, then 'free speech' is something else altogether. And actionable. That bakery will not, in the end, get that eleven million, because of course there will be appeals, but it will get something. Oberlin WILL have to pay, because what it did was wrong, and expresses pretty much every problem there is with boycotts against private companies and people.
Woberts
The Perfumed Seneschal
Wrong. Please do not comment on matters in which you know nothing about.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Trump supporters aren't necessarily evil themselves; evil policies just aren't deal-breakers for them.
You think "The Squad" is far left. That's funny.
How about if they treated people you cared about badly?
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
YOu won't take my word? Fine. Here is a definition of 'extortion' provided by Nolo Press, written by a criminal defense lawyer, explaining what the crime of extortion is;
Extortion: Laws, Penalties and Sentencing
According to the law (Federal, not state) extortion needs to have one, or some, of the following:
- Threats. Extortion is based upon some type of threat. The person making the threat must state an intention to commit an injury or harmful action against the victim. For example, under California’s law, a person can commit extortion by threatening to injure the victim or another person, accuse the victim of a crime or of some other disgraceful conduct, expose a secret, or report a person to immigration. (Cal. Pen. Code, § 519.) A person can make the threat verbally, in writing, or even through non-verbal gestures or other communications. In some states, merely making a threat is enough to qualify as a crime.
- Intent. A person commits extortion when making a threat with the specific intention of forcing someone else to provide money, property, or something of value. However, intent is not based on the defendant's statements alone, but rather upon the circumstances and facts surrounding the threat. In other words, a prosecutor can prove the accused intended to deprive the victim of property without having to actually show what was going on in the defendant's head.
- Fear. When someone makes a threat or attempts extortion, the threat itself must be able to cause fear in the victim. However, The fear can be based on almost anything, such as the fear of violence, economic loss, social stigma, deportation, or anything else that might cause the victim to act or hand over property.it isn't necessary that the victim actually experiences fear, but only that the accused intended to cause fear. Also, a person who experiences fear doesn't necessarily make the accused guilty of extortion, as the accused must have intended to cause the fear in an attempt to gain property.
- Property. The type of property someone tries to obtain when using extortion encompasses almost anything that has value. However, the property doesn't need to be actual physical property, and can be property that does not have a dollar value. It is also not necessary for the accused to actually deprive the victim of property, as attempting to extort property is also a crime. Courts have held that the property involved in extortion can include such property as cash, tangible goods, liquor licenses, debts, and even agreements not to compete in business. Sexual acts are also typically covered, though some states have specific laws that govern sexual extortion.
As you can see, a threat to boycott someone unless s/he does something the folks in the boycott want....such as put signs up, admit to being racist...any number of things...absolutely qualifies as extortion. Since a boycott is, by its very nature, intended to cause financial harm to the business being targeted, it IS extortion. By legal definition, it is extortion.
They are saying to the business: if you don't do this, vote that way, put this sign up, apologize for that, we will put you out of business by taking away all your customers.
That is, by it's very nature/definition, EXTORTION. Legally. And as the Oberlin college mess tells us, very, very actionable, especially if the accusations are false.
ADDENDUM: some boycotts...especially on the left, now, are CLAIMED to be for things the business has done. It's punishment, not an attempt to change things (though most of 'em say that the goal is to create change...and that makes it extortion...) If it is punishment, such as "we'll never shop at your place again because you did this or said that," well, that might not be extortion. That's just....mean, especially if the reason for shutting people down is because they have different political opinions, and that's it.
However, if punishment, not 'change' is the goal, you had better be very, very, VERY careful that you can prove, IN A COURT OF LAW, that your accusations are fact. You know, that the store owner DID target black shoplifters and allow white ones to leave without punishment, or that the store without the rainbow flags really DOES refuse to serve LBGT customers. If you can't, you will get sued, and you will lose....and that means that what you did was not 'free speech.'
Last edited:
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
First, I'd have to make certain that they did so....when some one who was treated badly told me so. Then I probably would not shop there. Remember, Penguin, I married a 'minority,' and my kids can, quite literally, check ALL the boxes.
But I wouldn't boycott someone because some left wing nut said so. One of my KIDS would have to tell me. It would have to be blatantly obvious, and not a 'this guy stopped me for shopplifting and I'm black, so it must be racist!"
Or...."This guy was singing "Deck the Halls" last Christmas; that means he's homophobic and out to get the LBGT people"
Or...."This person has Christmas decorations up, and Hannukah decorations up, but he doesn't have Ramadan notices up. He's RACIST"
Or..."this person doesn't have wild rainbow flags all over and he doesn't have a sign in front of his store listing all the politically correct groups that are welcome in it. He's RACIST."
Curious George
Veteran Member
Ok we are going to have to take this slowly it seems.
First, yes there are laws against libel and slander. These types of speech were never intended to be the kind of speech covered. False advertising is another example of this. We are not discussing libel or slander laws. I already made that clear. If you think that the boycotters or those encouraging the boycotters have libeled or slandered, please point out where.
Next, some classes are protected classes. These include sex, race, disability, veterans status and other classes in specific areas. One of those area specific classes is sexual orientation. This means that if a business that is open to the public refuses to serve a member of the public based on membership in one of those protected classes then the person facing the discrimination has an actionable claim.
Now, if you want to argue that the government does not have the authority to enforce such laws that is a very different discussion. It is going to involve you trying to learn instead of stomping your feet and trying to argue.
Back to our original subject--a boycott does not necessarily base itself in libelous or slanderous claims. Therefore, unless you have better reasoning you are not addressing reality. The boycotters are engaging in free speech and the business owners are also engaging in free speech. These businessowners haveput themselves out to the public by opening a public business. This is what capitalism and free speech looks like.
This thread is a reminder that we are full up on people who don't know what free speech is.
Or at least selectively don't know. When the right boycotts starbucks and oreo and gillette and ben and Jerry's and Nike and (I could go on for pages. Just look up Republican boycott) Nary a word is spoken about free speech or facism or Hitler or whatever other stupid codswallop.
Or at least selectively don't know. When the right boycotts starbucks and oreo and gillette and ben and Jerry's and Nike and (I could go on for pages. Just look up Republican boycott) Nary a word is spoken about free speech or facism or Hitler or whatever other stupid codswallop.
I know about free speech.
And I invite anyone to boycott my business & my posts.
It's your right. People should give thought to the effects
of how they exercise their rights. But if they don't, I'll
still not want to deny them this.
Btw, I've had fine relationships with even people who
truly believed that I'm a tool of Satan...& that my ilk are
ruining the country. This works for me.
Congratulations, you're not one of the people here with a double standard about boycotting.
Oh, wait....I didn't see the "not" until after I posted.
Ignore this post.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
So your argument is that since both the business and those engaging in a boycott are engaging in free speech, there is no harm or foul IN a boycott.
I mentioned...badly and in confused syntax, the problem. Let me try again.
There is a battle about freedom of religion that the LEFT has decided doesn't count. As you mention here, since the photographer puts itself out as a business open to the public, it MUST serve everybody...including all 'protected classes.' If one of those protected classes, like gays, for instance. who has used that studio to photograph other events without problems, asks it to 'shoot' a wedding, and the photographer refuses because his religion doesn't recognize same sex marriages, the gay couple can call that harm, and sue, and win.
In other words, freedom of religion has, in the view of the left, limits. If my freedom to observe my religious beliefs means that you can't make me take pictures at your wedding, then I don't have freedom of religion.
OK. the US Courts have that precedent.
Now we have freedom of speech. We have a general boycott, aimed against a business BECAUSE IT HAS A DIFFERENT POLITICAL BELIEF, or because of an accusation that is false, or because someone's opinion of that business's belief is that he's an evil Ted Bundy type because he voted for Trump and is therefore obviously a white supremacist. Because of course anybody who supports Trump is a white supremacist. Or Ted Bundy. Whatever.
That boycott does real financial harm to the business. The business does NO financial harm to the people participating in the boycott. In fact, it does no harm of any kind. It may go under/bankrupt/pffft, through, because those 'freedom of speech' boycott folks are seeing to it that nobody does business with that business.
and you believe that the business has NO way of repairing that harm or getting restitution from the folks in the boycott, because YOU CLAIM IT'S JUST FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
I cry hypocrisy. Really.
If one can sue a business for refusing to shoot a wedding which does NO financial harm to the couple because of religious objections (and I don't see anybody suing a photographer for refusing to shoot a polygamous wedding or a wedding that involves Satanic rituals, sacrificed chickens or orgies, do you? THEY are refused because of religious objections, too, aren't they?) Then why can't a photographer who will do business with gays in any OTHER way, objecting only to the religious nature of a wedding, refuse to shoot that wedding?
Never mind, the left doesn't see any problems at all with that. The gay couple will sue, and win, and destroy the business, and everybody cheers. No freedom of religion. It is circumscribed in that case.
However, they seem perfectly fine with accusing a business of saying the wrong things, or believing the wrong things, and then doing their level best to destroy that business...one that has done no financial or any other harm to anybody in the mob. They don't have any problems at all acting on lies.
There is a very big difference between demonstrating and a boycott. You get a civil demonstration across the street from the business, and you put up signs, and you shout 'Trump lover!" at the employees and customers. You do this for a few hours, exercise your spleen, ....and then you get ready for the folks of that business to put out bigger Trump signs, get demonstrators of their own to stand in front of YOUR store....or homeless shelter or whatever. THAT is free speech.
Boycotts, however, and demonstrations that devolve into vandalism and attempts to block the entrance? That's not free speech. That's threat. That's an attempt to destroy the business.
And THAT, sir, is what I criticize, what I see the left doing all over the place, and what I won't do. period.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Free speech is free speech. One can SAY whatever one wants. One should be careful about spreading lies when one knows they are lies...that's called libel and is illegal, but otherwise?
Fine.
but just as they figure that yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater...when there is no fire...is not protected free speech, neither, I believe, should organized boycotts be automatically protected as such.
Why?
Because in BOTH cases, the intent is not to speak freely, but to cause harm.
Last edited:
Of course, I'm advocating the right to boycott.
But not libel, slander, or incitement to carnage.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
What organized, general boycott is NOT libel, slandar, or incitement to carnage?
Or if not outright 'incitement to carnage,' then ''we'll close down these people to prove our point, whether they are guilty or not."
I have repeatedly stated that personal boycott....that is, "I won't shop there any more because they have harmed me" is one thing. I'm talking about the general call to arms that the boycotts I'm talking about are; the ones where leaders spread the propaganda, and everybody follows along like sheep.
Shoot, I just thought of the Proctor and Gamble boycott...because some twit claimed that their logo was a Satanic symbol? They spent YEARS combating that bit of stupidity. I know many people who still will not purchase a Proctor and Gamble product because that company is, supposedly, "in league with the church of Satan." THAT organized boycott did great harm. Turns out that a man named Jim Peters started it, Amway continued it....and P&G sued Amway. Took 'em awhile, but P&G won that one.
THAT boycott, based on spurious and idiotic accusations, is still harming Proctor and Gamble.
This, to you, is a good thing?
Last edited:
It can be just the ceasing of doing business with them.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
And when a large group of people say 'we won't do business with you until you change your political support or admit that you are ...racist or something else you aren't... so that the business LOSES so much business that it goes under, that's not a 'just,' is it?
That is extortion, according to the Federal legal definition of extortion.
I'd say it's a legal form of extortion.
And yes, extortion can be legal.
It's a primary function of lawyers.
Indeed. Such an amount is clearly designed to get people's attention and set an example.
Difficult to say. Although, as I was reading a bit more about this case, I found that the college distributed a flyer which stated "Gibson's has a long history of racist acts," which was a false statement. If it was true, then the college had ample opportunity to present evidence of such in court, but apparently they didn't even try.
But if the college was distributing this false information to the students, then one can see how they can be moved to protest against it.
Well, it's just bizarre, that's all. I would consider this a rare kind of case, not really the general rule as how most boycotts usually go. This wasn't really a boycott as much as it was some kind of railroad job. Someone within the college administration clearly had some kind of personal grudge against that bakery. Not based on anything factual, and it wasn't a real boycott for any kind of noble or honorable reasons.
You may be forgetting some of this country's history. Sure, both the right and left has had some extreme violent types. But some can also be peaceful. But there are some issues which can stir up people's emotions, and if things escalate, it's hard to keep things under control.
That gives the cops extra work and costs the taxpayers more money.
Haven't you been arguing for prohibiting the right of people to freely associate with each other and organizing a boycott? These are rights that people have, but you think that your right to own a business and make money should take precedence over the rights of other people.
I'll admit that capitalists have had to learn to behave better, mainly due to government regulations and political factions strong enough to force them to end slavery, sweatshops, child labor, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc. - at least in America and other Western countries.
I have read the Constitution many times, but I'll admit I must have missed the part where it said "The USA is a CAPITALIST nation." Perhaps you can refer me to which section or amendment this statement can be found.
Well, it's an idea, but I think that you're gravely misinformed if you think it's the "whole idea" behind the USA. There are other things in the Constitution besides property rights, but you're just proving my point in demonstrating that that's the only thing you truly care about.
Actually, the Constitution is rather vague on these issues, and as with anything, it's all subject to interpretation. But maybe that's a topic worthy of its own thread. I don't want to get too sidetracked here.
I didn't use the words "human truth" so I'm not sure why you're quoting that. As I said above, the college administrators knew that the bakery was not racist, yet published a claim that they had "a long history of racist acts" which they were unable to prove in court. Why would they publish something like that if they didn't know it to be true and had no evidence of it? This wasn't just about the shoplifting case, but about claims that went beyond that.
Because humans can be quite enigmatic creatures, and sometimes, I just like to know what makes some people tick. I guess it's just a hobby of mine. More interesting than stamp collecting.
I think it depends on the circumstances. Each case is different and has to be examined and investigated. Not that I have much faith in our justice system, but ideally, a just verdict will be reached and a punishment to fit the crime when warranted.
I think the Democrats are actually going in circles, which is why they can't seem to get anywhere. If they really were moving to the very far left, then that would at least be taking a stand. But they don't really have the will or the resolve to do anything that decisive. Plus, they squabble with each other too much, so even if they're all supposedly on the same side, they can't really agree on much of anything.
As far who is peaceful or not peaceful in terms of public protest, demonstrations, or even open discussions, social media, or message boards like RF - both sides have plenty of bad apples. One also has to examine political violence from a larger perspective of examining what actual politicians in power do in terms of using the apparatus of the state to commit acts of violence.
Historically, the right-wing has been pretty darn violent. But, so has the left-wing at different times and places. Within the US, one can look over our history and note significant incidences of political violence and observe whether it was perpetrated by the right-wing or the left-wing.