From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,alt.discrimination,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Waldenbooks fires staff for refusing to sell racist book!
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:46:26 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

so@fortran.cs.psu.edu (Nicol C So) writes:

}In article <70SU03c=817R00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
}>so@fortran.cs.psu.edu (Nicol C So) writes:
}>
}>}The boycotters are exerting their "fair share" of influence on the business
}>}decision of bookstore owners, there is nothing morally wrong with these
}>}people.  The boycotters have no moral obligation to patronize businesses
}>}whose business practices they do not approve.  Nor do they have the moral
}>}obligation to help spread any particular idea.
}>
}>I disagree strongly.  There is indeed something morally wrong, even morally
}>offensive, about people who have as their goal the suppression of material
}>that they deem offensive.  ... I do NOT dispute anyone's
}>right to boycott anyone or any store for any reason.  But that I support
}>someone's right to boycott does not mean that I support the goal of their
}>boycott.

}At the same time, the fact that you do not approve of the goal of the
}boycotters does not mean that the boycotters are morally wrong.

I think you need to read the paragraph you responded to a little more
closely.  I stated explicitely that I believe there is something morally
wrong about the goal of such boycotters.

}>I agree completely that no one has an obligation to patronize a business nor
}>to help spread an idea they disagree with.  However, it is not the case that
}>the only other alternative is to attempt to prevent the spread of that idea
}                                             ^^^^^^^
}>to those who might be receptive to it.  There is a middle ground...

}Well, whether the boycotters are "preventing" the spread of the idea
}really depends on how you use the word "prevent".  To spread an idea,
}an author may need the _voluntary_ collaboration of other people.
}This collaboration may be a publisher agreeing to publish the book,
}or it may be bookstore owners agreeing to sell the book, or yet it may be
}consumers purchasing the book to make publishing the book profitable.
}It should be noted that _no one_ owes the author his or her collaboration.

Of course, and I would never say otherwise.

}I wouldn't call it "prevention" if any individual decides to exercise
}his/her option not to lend the author his/her collaboration.  The author
}is free to secure collaboration from people who approve his/her idea.
}If the author's idea is not spread because no one is willing to
}contribute his/her collaboration, _this_is_fair_game_.

Again, this is clear.  But in this case -- and in most cases of similar
boycotts -- the stated purpose of the boycott is NOT simply the expression
of the boycotters' personal preferences but rather the application of a
specific influence _above and beyond_ the normal marketplace in order to
force the bookseller to stop selling the "undesirable" book.

Here's the difference that I think you have missed:  What you are stating
above is each person's obvious right to buy or not buy a particular book
for whatever reason.  If an insufficient number of people buy said book,
it will not be profitable and will cease to be sold and published _on its
own merits_.

But what the boycotters are doing is very different.  They are saying to
the bookseller, "Because you decide to sell this particular book we are
going to stop patronizing _your entire store_."  They are applying a
coercion to the bookseller that affects ALL of the booksellers business
on account of ONE book.

Clearly this is not simply a case where, as you said, "any individual 
decides to exercise his/her option not to lend the author his/her 
collaboration."  The boycotters are doing much more than not lending
their collaboration.  

It is also something quite different from the fair game you stated:  "If 
the author's idea is not spread because no one is willing to contribute 
his/her collaboration" because, as I said before, it is NOT the case that 
the boycotters are passively not collaborating in the spread of this 
particular idea, they are ACTIVELY trying to coerce the bookseller into 
removing his collaboration in the spread of the idea by applying an
influence on the bookseller that extends way beyond that one book.

Let me try to sum this up one more way:  If you don't like a particular
book, then by all means "boycott" THAT BOOK.  Talk to all your friends
and family, post on UseNet, urging people to not buy THAT BOOK.  This
is not only your right but it is the normal working of the free market.
The book will stand or fall _on its own merits_.

But if you boycott _the entire store_ that sells the book, then you have,
in my opinion, taken a morally wrong step.  You are now trying to circumvent
the bookseller's normal decision making process (as to whether or not to
carry this particular book) by hurting his entire business on account of
one single book.  You are now actively trying to suppress the book, instead
of passively refusing to support it.

}>The person who started this thread has stated explicitly that his desire
}>does NOT lie on that middle ground, but rather that he wishes that the
}>freedom for everyone to choose for themselves whether or not to read
}>such "offensive" (in his opinion) material as this joke calendar be
}>removed from existence.  And that is what I find morally objectionable.

}I don't recall reading anything from the starter of this thread that
}says he wishes the "freedom for everyone to choose for themselves whether
}or not to read such "offensive" material" be "removed from existence".
}I believe this is just your inference.  

dennis p. harris wrote:
>no, i don't believe in censorship.  but when someone publishes something
>obnoxious, i think that it *should* generate some discussion.  and i would urge
>the publisher to publish something else instead.

It is the last clause that leads me to conclude that his wish is that
"something obnoxious" not be published.  Unless Mr. Harris is in the habit
of urging that which he does NOT wish, I think my conclusion is valid.
And if his "urgings" are heeded -- note the use of the word "instead" -- 
then my freedom to choose to read the "something obnoxious" has been 
removed from existence.

}From my response in the earlier
}part of this article, it should be clear why I wouldn't identify
}boycott with deprivation of freedom (to choose).

And it should be equally clear why such a boycott most decidedly has as
a goal the deprivation of freedom to choose.

--James Preston

Xref: sparky misc.consumers:16287 rec.video:11015 sci.electronics:15349