Quote:
Originally Posted by Billi
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? If freedom of speech would be an absolutely sacred right wouldn't this mean that there must not follow any financial consequences (in an ideal world)?
I think voting with your wallet is some kind of censorship, maybe from the "good side", but nevertheless.
|
I don't feel that I am.
To me, "censorship"
is stopping someone from saying what they want to say by infringing on their rights, liberty, and freedom: covering their mouth, denying them the ability to buy a blog and post their thoughts like everyone else, taking away their personal liberty so that they can't write or speak their thoughts.
To me, "censorship" is
not stopping supporting people in their art. I fail to support people in their art for all kinds of reasons, some conscious, some unconscious. I don't consider anyone to have a "right" to my money in the same way that they have a right to personal freedom.
A good example on the many perspectives of this issue would be if a radio jock says something so offensive that the ads are pulled from his station and his show is canceled as no longer a money maker. Some people call that censorship, but I don't. I think Tide and Downy and Otis Spunkmeyer have the right to say "I don't want to pay money to have my brand associated with those sentiments" and I think a network has a right to say "You're not profitable anymore to us, so we're not renewing your contract". I don't think there's a constitutional right to have my own radio show operated at someone else's financial loss.
I also understand that reasonable people can disagree on what censorship means, so I'm not telling you you're wrong, just that I see no contradiction between my beliefs and actions.
P.S. I love that people are choosing Option 4. Thank you, I worked hard on that one.
