Purchasing Decisions?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

So without bringing up He Who Must Not Be Named, I was intrigued by a recent thread wherein someone contended that deliberately not buying the (unrelated) works of someone for having different views than you was a trampling of the freedom of expression/speech.

First this. The freedom of speech doesn't imply a non-freedom of listening. Somebody can say whatever they want, but they can't make me listen to them.


About the poll items: I usually don't know anything about the author, but his or her name. I often don't even know if it's a pseudonym or not...

In those rare cases where I might not like the way a person thinks/talks/whatever, the chances of me liking his or her books is small too and I wouldn't buy that book on the basis that I probably won't like the book.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

Paradox - If you tie a piece of buttered toast to a cat's back (butter facing up), and then drop the cat... How will it land? Cat on its feet, or buttered side down?

Neither. It hovers over the floor, rotating. This is the basis of my new 'infinite free energy' machine.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I consider "freedom of speech" to be an absolutely sacred right, but at the same time, I don't expect there to not be financial consequences.

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.

[RDaneel54]

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.

Then if I do not buy everything, I am practicing censorship? I don't think so.

Censorship deals with suppression. My personal choice to buy or not to buy does not suppress that choice in someone else.

Your freedom ends at my wallet (paraphrase).

[anamardoll]

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.

[DMB]

I can't say I'd never buy any writing by someone whose expressed opinions I regard as loathsome, but I'd need a jolly good reason.

The thing is: how come anyone pays attention to someone's opinions? Is it because s/he is a well-known writer/actress/artist/performer? If so, does that make their opinions any more worthwhile than those of someone less well-known?

And if I am buying this person's product, am I not helping give him/her a platform?

I do believe in free speech, but I don't owe anyone a megaphone.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

To me, "censorship" is stopping someone from saying what they want to say by infringing on their rights, liberty, and freedom...

To me, "censorship" is not stopping supporting people in their art..

Let us simplify it: On one side there are two authors who write not for the sake of the art but for their living, on the other side there are you, but not only one Ana, but thousands or a million, so that their actions will have an impact.
So, both authors publish a book and to push the sellings they give an interview and in this example the interviews are not related to the books.
Writer A says something run-of-the-mill, writer B something affronting that is beyond the borders of political correctness.
And purely because of these interviews you decide to buy the book of writer A and never that of writer B.
So you don't measure them by their deeds/accomplishments (=books, writing skills...) but only by their words.

Of course, you're not actively censuring B, you don't say that he's not allowed to express his opinion, but what you're doing has the same effect - it comes down to: if B tells this opinion that I don't like then he has to starve because I won't buy his book.

I'm not against voting with one's wallet, and I'm still not decided if the freedom of speech should be limitless. I'm just saying when you vote with your wallet then you punish someone for his opinions and you're contradicting the idea of the freedom of speech.

[anamardoll]

But you're only contradicting the idea of "freedom of speech" if you define it the way you are defining it. If you define "freedom of speech" differently -- as some people in this thread, myself included, have -- there is no contradiction.

For me, "freedom of speech" simply says you can SAY what you want. You can't be blocked from saying what you want by being put in prison or denied the same platforms that other people can buy or have for free.

But, for me, "freedom of speech" doesn't mean there can't be civil consequences like, say, not being laughed at or ridiculed or not purchased by the general public. (Would you consider me pointing and laughing at someone's opinion a stifling of their freedom of speech? Some people care more about social approval than monetary gain, after all.)

So you don't measure them by their deeds/accomplishments (=books, writing skills...) but only by their words.

I would prefer to say that I am measuring them by their stated opinions. Those opinions may or may not be present in their writing -- I may chose to not purchase their books and find out. I will not automatically assume hey, I'll bet their opinions haven't influenced their writing at all and sally forth and buy their book on spec.

It's possible that if I KNOW their book doesn't contain their opinions, I might buy the book, but if I KNOW that, I've already read it (at the library, most likely) and I may choose not to buy the book for my personal collection because I may feel uneasy with what the author would do with my money.

Of course, you're not actively censuring B, you don't say that he's not allowed to express his opinion, but what you're doing has the same effect - it comes down to: if B tells this opinion that I don't like then he has to starve because I won't buy his book.

If B is counting on me buying his book to prevent him from starving, he's going to be very hungry in the future. I don't buy a lot of books lately.

Your censorship argument breaks down here because you are assuming that everyone will censor B for his opinion. This is highly unlikely. I cannot think of a single opinion that everyone on earth will equally censor to the point where the author must starve or remain silent.

[nogle]

The right to speak your mind freely is not the right to be heard. In other words, someone spouting any offiensive crap is not entitled to an audience.

Having said that, I do seek out articulate and intelligent opinions that are counter to my own so that I may understand the other side and to further examine the basis for my own beliefs. Further, I also seek out the crackpots that agree with me to see the basis for objections and for the entertainment value.

[xg4bx]

"freedom of speech" can only be taken away by a political authority. choosing not to support something you disagree with is simply voting with your wallet.

however i'd draw the line at anyone calling for said author to never be published again due to their disagreement with the authors beliefs.

[sadievan]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

I must say, I bought less of he-who-must-not-be-named books since I found out about his rants.

Ok. I'm curious. This is the 2nd time 'he' has been referred to. Who are you talking about?

Carol

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by sadievan

Ok. I'm curious. This is the 2nd time 'he' has been referred to. Who are you talking about?

Carol

I think they are referring to this thread

[sadievan]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

I think they are referring to this thread

Ah! Thanks. When I first read 'he-who-must-not-be-named' I thought they were referring to A Alf and was confused.

Carol

[cHex]

I buy stuff all the time with little thought given to the opinions of the producer: books, fruit, underwear, computers, coffee, etc. What I look for are interesting or informative books, inexpensive delicious fruit, comfortable underwear, powerful yet affordable computers, good coffee in a pleasant ambiance, etc. I frankly don't care what the inventors, manufacturers, servers, etc. believe; I care about the product and whether it is a good value to me.

If I find someone (or their opinions) to be obnoxious, offensive, disagreeable, boring, or whatever, I might take action to avoid having to listen to them express it. In a freedom-of-speech culture, they get to express it, but I don't have to listen to it.

If I don't like a particular farmer and I can get the same produce from another farmer without paying too much extra, I might do that. If I don't like a particular author and I can get just as interesting reading from another author, I might do that. However if I don't like an author, but I find her books to be compelling and fascinating, I have no problem buying and enjoying the books. (My opinion of the author might color my reading of her books enough to make them unenjoyable, but in my experience this usually doesn't happen.)

This poll begs the question, "What are we supposed to be voting FOR with our money?" My money votes for entertainment or information rather than world view, when it comes to books. And I believe that, at the end of the day, I'm more likely to "support" people with whom I disagree than with whom I agree, simply because I'm so opinionated and people with whom I entirely agree are few and far between. They're just such good writers...

[Fbone]

If we only interacted with people whose beliefs were similar to our own, wouldn't we be living in stagnating walled enclaves?