Great blog comment on the Milwaukee Urinal / Sentinal this morning...
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/120413384.html?commentSubmitted=y&refresh=16530&sort=last+to+first#commentsAutonomy wrote: "Second, the Supreme Court, in the Citizens United case, basically said that people are expected to be cognizant of how businesses contribute money politically, and that we can't restrict contributions because we would otherwise be suppressing "speech" in the form of political contributions. If we're expected to only spend money that we're comfortable with being later passed on to a particular political cause, then each dollar we spend is its own political statement; and if that's the case, then why shouldn't we be allowed to make others aware of how they are having a political effect when they spend their money?"
This is the a very well stated defense of boycotting and other work stoppage tactics. And as consumers have almost zero ability to determine the politics of their choices at the supermarket or department store, and even less ability to have influence at the gas pump, organized boycotts are the only remaining voice for those of us who can't back our free speech with millions - even billions - of dollars (anonymous dollars, no less).
Thanks for posting this Anonymous!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
