home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky misc.consumers:16459 alt.discrimination:4336 alt.censorship:7443
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!taligent!apple!amdahl!jsp
- 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!
- Message-ID: <70SU03c=817R00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
- Date: 12 Sep 92 05:00:01 GMT
- References: <1992Sep8.203516.20501@crd.ge.com> <18neubINNbm1@bach.crhc.uiuc.edu> <1992Sep10.141459.4931@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <BuF4xE.63s@cs.psu.edu>
- Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
- Distribution: usa
- Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
- Lines: 30
-
- 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. Let me make it clear (even though others on
- this thread have already come to my defense) that 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.
-
- 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 on which
- you do not partake of the idea, but you allow it to exist for others to
- partake of if they so choose.
-
- 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.
-
- --James Preston
-