Ford pulls LR/Jag GLBT support due to American Family threat

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

(Um, it really is. I'm not merely stating my opinion about the law. This is what I do day in and day out. I sue people for interference with prospective economic advantage for breakfast, and I swallow all their assets for lunch.)

That's why you never end and argument with iSm by saying, 'So, sue me!'

[Alex]

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.

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.]

[Alex]

dp

[Alex]

iSm, I get what you're saying, I really do (and the same tact was used in an attempt to break quite a few of the Civil Rights boycotts). Though I don't really think you'd have a winner if persued on those grounds.

For one, we have an idea of what Ford told Jaguar/Land Rover but do we have any idea what was said in the meeting between AFA and the Ford executives?

Do we have any evidence that AFA ever requested this specific economic interference? Perhaps all that was said was "We're disturbed by your promotion of the gay agenda and unless we feel you change your ways we will encourage our members to stop buying Ford products." And the response was "ok, we'll try to think of something that will make you happy but you have to call off the boycott first."

Was there still any specific intereference?

Again, if this were criminalized, it would mean that a popular tool of progressive ideas would be criminalized. All those students who staged sit ins until their university agreed to boycott companies operating in South Africa were engaging in economic interference.

[CoasterMatt]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I sue people for interference with prospective economic advantage for breakfast, and I swallow all their assets for lunch.

Maybe you should try an occasional bran muffin

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

For one, we have an idea of what Ford told Jaguar/Land Rover but do we have any idea what was said in the meeting between AFA and the Ford executives?

Well, that's the very purpose of a lawsuit, Alex. To find out these things.

It seems fishy, so you make formal allegations based on information and belief in a court of law. Doing so gives you the power to find out things that you will never have if you don't sue. If I name Ford in this lawsuit, they become obligated to turn over to me the minutes of their meetings with the AFA. Then we find out. If there's nothing to it, the lawsuit goes nowhere. If there's economic interference demonstrated by the minutes of those meetings, then that goes to evidence that AFA is liable for damages.


I would caution against throwing around the word "criminal." None of this is criminal, but it is illegal. They are not the same thing, and I think the important distinction must be pointed out to those who are fearing the Thought Police. No one is going to be hauled into jail for telling Ford to stop advertising to them damn faggots. But someone can be held liable for damages if they interfere with the contractual or business relationship between two parties.



Edited to add: Some things are interference, and others are not. Sitting outside Ford headquarters in protest is not interference. Telling Ford that you intend to boycott for their gay advertising policy is not interference. The line begins to be crossed when you tell Ford you will organize a boycott (that you have the actual power to organize) if they do not do as you say. And the line is trampled when you meet with them and work out a deal with specific terms and conditions. The discovery process of civil law allows litigants to (attempt to) find out whether such a deal was made.

Please don't jump to the conclusions that protest will be outlawed or thought controlled by implants. That's for Patriot Act 3 to determine. These are the laws in place right now and they are not being used to stop protests or control anyone's thoughts. Economic interference lawsuits have been going on for hundreds of years.

[Alex]

Yes, I'm aware that economic interference is by no means a new thing. But historically such claims have failed in circumstances like this.

I'll defer to your expertise, though. I wonder to what extent is matters if the interfering party gains no economic benefit? Such as in the many groups that threatened boycotts (and had meetings with officials) against companies operating or dealing with South Africa during Apartheid and were successful in reaching such specific agreements.

You are correct that I was loose with my terminology in saying criminalized. So change it to regulated (though I would argue that any time the government says you can be punished for something, even if it is only through financial penalty in civil court it has essentially been criminalized).

[€uroMeinke]

I think as ISM alludes to, that the benefit of threatened suit is the discovery process in itself. That a Ford AFA meeting took place is suspicious considering the timeing and the presumed outcome. It's something I suspect the shareholders would also like to know about.

[Alex]

Something I'm curious about (honestly, I have no idea how this works).

If you file a lawsuit, is the discovery process in which defendent would have to turn over records essentially automatic or does there have to be any kind of certification of merit by the court before it proceeds to that point?

I am in no way saying that is what should happen to such a lawsuit (whether I think something should be against the law has little to do with whether it is), just curious of the discovery process is a guaranteed outcome of filing or if there is some threshold of validity that must first be met?

[wendybeth]

Bless you, iSm. It's been difficult to articulate, mostly because I knew their actions stunk, and went beyond the pale of a regular boycott. Several times I was going to post that in some instances, boycotts have achieved great things when all else has failed, such as the transportation boycotts initiated by Rosa Park's arrest. (I didn't because I didn't feel like arguing that view and the one I am currently defending concurrently). What AFA is doing stinks to high hell, and it just didn't seem to me like it was either ethical or entirely legal. I never said that what Ford was doing was illegal- I said AFA and their ilk are doing should be illegal. Ford deserves nothing but scorn for caving in to these blackmailer's demands.