So, does a boycott only become illegal if it is successful? It is ok to boycott, but not to meet with the boycotted party and detail the boycott? If
The Advocate editorial staff met with the Ford leadreship and said "unless you renounce your agreement with the AFA, we'll ask our subscribers to boycott" would this be illegal interference? Was it illegal interference when gay groups met with television stations attempting to keep Dr. Laura's television show off the air?
If a behavior is illegal only when you disagree with the idea behind it then that is that is thought policing.
Personally, I disagree with the famous dictate that you can scream "fire" in a crowded theater. Or "bomb" in an airport. Or "I'm going to shoot the president" at a Presidential rally.
That is not to say you aren't responsible to some degree for reasonable responses to what you say (shout fire, cause a panic that tramples someone and you're responsible; but not responsible for the person who says "well, I'm going to die anyway, might as well rape this woman). But the actual utterance should not be criminalized. If you shout "fire" in a crowded theater and are completely ignored, I don't think a crime occured.
Quote:
|
Too bad they had to beat the **** out of someone first though, eh?
|
No, not too bad. That is exactly the way it should be. What is too bad is that they beat the **** out of someone. People are punished for crimes they commit, not crimes they might commit. Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't oppose them, but that is not the same thing as criminalization. As a libertarian it is generally my position that society should make more use of direct social forces rather than governmental coercion.
[And yes, I oppose the "hate crime" categorization. I do not think it a worse crime to beat someone to death because he's black than to beat him to death because you wanted his baseball cap.]