To Kathy In Va. With Love
This is a reply to Kathy's latest comment on my post: Is This The Country I Fought For?. I placed it here because it was getting rather long, and buried in the back. I am very open to dissenting views on a subject and will not censor based on subject matter. Though I might for vulgar statements.
I have no problem with boycotting products. I find that it is an effective tool for getting my point across. The problem with firing someone over what they say on the public stage is that, for one, it violates their right to free speech. The other is that people are inclined to boycott your product for the actions that you have taken. Someone saying something that offends your company isn't very newsworthy. When a company takes an action against that person, it becomes more so. A boycott against your company for its actions can draw the media in droves and subject you to tons of bad publicity. Which has the biggest hit on the bottom line?
There is of course the idea that any publicity is good publicity. This is based on the hypothesis that people will forget why you were in the news, but remember your name/brand. In that case one should just raise all the stink that they can, I guess.
Although we've been basically discussing the Whoopi deal, what about being fired for a bumper sticker or being arrested for peaceful protest? How do these fit in to our corporation sponsored political system. The piece was mainly about the abuse of our freedoms and the different ways that people who have a political agenda are attempting to quiet the people who have a differing view. If I fire someone for being Jewish, I'm classed as an anti-Semite. When I fire someone for being a democrat, I'm within my rights? Not in the America that I fought for.
PEACE Out
I have no problem with boycotting products. I find that it is an effective tool for getting my point across. The problem with firing someone over what they say on the public stage is that, for one, it violates their right to free speech. The other is that people are inclined to boycott your product for the actions that you have taken. Someone saying something that offends your company isn't very newsworthy. When a company takes an action against that person, it becomes more so. A boycott against your company for its actions can draw the media in droves and subject you to tons of bad publicity. Which has the biggest hit on the bottom line?
There is of course the idea that any publicity is good publicity. This is based on the hypothesis that people will forget why you were in the news, but remember your name/brand. In that case one should just raise all the stink that they can, I guess.
Although we've been basically discussing the Whoopi deal, what about being fired for a bumper sticker or being arrested for peaceful protest? How do these fit in to our corporation sponsored political system. The piece was mainly about the abuse of our freedoms and the different ways that people who have a political agenda are attempting to quiet the people who have a differing view. If I fire someone for being Jewish, I'm classed as an anti-Semite. When I fire someone for being a democrat, I'm within my rights? Not in the America that I fought for.
PEACE Out
posted by Dilligaf ? at 8:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home