Quentin Tarantino to be Boycotted

[chijohnaok]

Free speech belongs to us, not government unions. In this case a government union is trying to silence a critic and by extension, any critic. I didn't say government employees cant express an opinion on the matter, they just cant use their "union" as the platform.
.

"Government" unions (or unions representing government employees) represent 8.4 million government workers (as of 2010).

"Government" labor unions contribute millions of dollars every year to political candidates (those contributions are overwhelmingly to the Democratic Pary and Democratic candidates); and spend millions of dollars to lobby for a variety of issues (and against candidates that they do not agree with).

Examples of such 'government' labor unions include:
American Postal Workers Union (200,000 employees and retirees)
National Education Association (2,963,121 @ 2014.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (1,337,126 (2014))

Postal union political contributions totalled nearly $9 million in 2012.
AFSCME contributed $11,329,129 in 2014, virtually all of it to support Democrat Party candidates.
NEA political contributions totalled $29,908,739 in 2014, almost all of it to support Democratic candidates.

You indicated that government unions should not be used as a platform.
What about "government" employee unions that make political contributions, lobby for or against political candidates, lobby for or against issues, etc? Should those unions be prohibited from those activities?
Because those activities are a use of the union as a platform.

 

[Berzerker]

I do not have limits on my rights to free speech in the manner with which you want to hobble me. I have the same rights everybody else has.

I dont care about "you", I care about government unions organizing boycotts against critics. That suppresses speech! And if you are employed by government you dont have the same rights.

I have agreed, because of my position, to be bound by FERPA. I have agreed, because of my position(and a couple other things), to be bound as a mandated reporter.

Does that mean you really dont have free speech? Sounds like you've given that up to be in your position. I dont want you and your fellow union members using your position to push boycotts on the rest of us when we anger y'all with our words.

A labor union is a union of employees, a labor union is not the office. I am not my position. I am a citizen who holds a position, as are my coworkers. Unions of governmental employees are you and me, by the way. You're still confusing the two.

Most people dont belong to government unions, I dont know what you're talking about there.

You do not want a sheriff's office being able to silence its employees on their personal time.

What if the sheriff and other employees organize a boycott of a business because the owner exposed police corruption?

Talk about just begging for more Snowden-like situations because government control of speech is great!

Snowden didn't organize a boycott of a business for exposing a problem with government, but he does show you and other government employees dont have free speech.

If my union says Quenten Tarantino, or Barack Obama, or Bruce Rauner are pricks that does not suppress criticism, it does not violate free speech. It injects criticism and exercises free speech. I'm not quite sure how you have this so neatly reversed.

Organizing a boycott does suppress free speech

Snowden was not at all comparable to this. The accusation there was that he revealed secrets he was supposed to keep.

He was a government employee with restricted rights, he did not have free speech. I was responding to someone claiming government employees do have free speech.

Unions represent the employees, not the employer, that's pretty much their whole point. You keep caling them government unions, apparently to imply that they're part of the governement. They're not (unless the US is massively different from the rest of the world in this matter). your argument is rather invalid.

Government unions represent government employees and those employees are not exempt from constitutional limits on their activities. Government employees and their unions organizing boycotts against critics crosses the line, that activity suppresses speech.

Calling for a boycott is not in any way, shape or form suppression free speech. It is free speech itself.

"We the police" want you to shut up... Thats their boycott. Not too long ago the CEO of Chick Filet got in trouble for expressing opposition to gay marriage. Many people were outraged and a boycott ensued. Then politicians stepped in and threatened to block expansion of Chick Filet. That suppresses free speech. The message is clear, stfu or else. Now, I generally support the idea of boycotts but not over matters of speech - and I'm talking about "private" boycotts.

You indicated that government unions should not be used as a platform. What about "government" employee unions that make political contributions, lobby for or against political candidates, lobby for or against issues, etc? Should those unions be prohibited from those activities? Because those activities are a use of the union as a platform.

Should not be used as a platform to organize boycotts against critics.

 

[jackelgull]

These police officers aren't forcing anyone into the boycott. They're asking their supporters not to watch the movie. This is an instance of directing the free market to surpress free speech, which the free market does all the time anyways.

 

[Farm Boy]

I have no idea where to even address this with you if you believe organizing a boycott, which is fundamentally free citizens actively exercising a right of choice over what goods and services to purchase, is somehow equivalent to the government itself, in official capacity, telling somebody they can't say something or it will punish them.

I have agreed to be bound by FERPA because I am privy during the course of my official job function to information that is personal and sensitive as well as only available to me because of my employment. My job function, entrusted to me by the people, requires use of information which we the people do not also grant to me, the citizen, for my private use. The same would be true of Snowden. Trying to conflate this with government employees having no right to get together and criticize things like the government itself, or other private citizens, while outside of their jobs is downright offensive. You would reduce me, the citizen, to no more than a tool of your collective will both on and off the job? In all kindness, this view and those who hold it can go fornicate themselves. And I'd be fine with a union representing me saying the same. Free speech is fun like that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

These police officers aren't forcing anyone into the boycott. They're asking their supporters not to watch the movie. This is an instance of directing the free market to surpress free speech, which the free market does all the time anyways.

There is an element of implied force in anything that an organized group of armed people do. "Requesting your support" certainly included.

 

[Farm Boy]

There is an element of implied force in anything that an organized group of armed people do. "Requesting your support" certainly included.

Americans are an armed group, shall we look to prohibit their organization wherever our individual distastes lie? I think not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Americans are an armed group, shall we look to prohibit their organization wherever our individual distastes lie? I think not.

There is no comparison between the level of armament of "Americans" and the level of armament of cops. A cop has a gun, and an American has a gun, but the cop has law enforcement sides with me to rely on. That's a huge difference.

 

[Farm Boy]

There is no comparison between the level of armament of "Americans" and the level of armament of cops. A cop has a gun, and an American has a gun, but the cop has law enforcement sides with me to rely on. That's a huge difference.

So do whites, comparatively. And that's a huge difference too. I fail to understand the justification around limiting the right to free association and public gathering.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So do whites, comparatively. And that's a huge difference too. I fail to understand the justification around limiting the right to free association and public gathering.

It's my nature. Defending the rights of cops is completely alien to me.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yea. Perpetually feels weird here too. But whaddya do?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Cops are no different than any other group. They have the same rights as everybody else in a free and open society. Treating them differently would be "arrogant".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Cops are no different than any other group. They have the same rights as everybody else in a free and open society. Treating them differently would be "arrogant".

Really? I think it is a lot of things, but I wouldn't call it arrogant.

Oh.

This is your usual random effort to pick a fight?

Why bother?

 

[chijohnaok]

Should not be used as a platform to organize boycotts against critics.

So the following examples of boycotts by unions should not have been allowed?:
The 1965-1970 Delano Grape Strike and Boycott (organized/supported by Cesar Chavez)
Unite Here labor union's boycott's of dozens of hotels across the US and Canada
Boycotts by the California Labor Federation of 19 different businesses
In April 2014, the American Postal Workers Union launched a ‘Don’t Buy Staples’ campaign, which was endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, AFSCME, SEIU, and many other labor organizations.
Multiple labor unions (some of them "government unions") have in the past supported boycotts and other activities against apartheid in South African and Israel.

 

[Grisu]

Here's a question.

When a trade union calls for a boycott of a business during a labor dispute they post up union members with signs outside that business, often with signs, sometimes passing out leaflets, etc.

If off duty armed cops post up outside theaters to advocate for their suggested boycott would this seemingly identical behavior be allowable?

As long as they are off duty and not wearing a uniform I don't see a problem there. Why? Do you mean the armed part? Yes, that's somewhat problematic, and I would find any armed guy at a protest problematic. But that's america for ya, right?

 

[Kyriakos]

As long as they are off duty and not wearing a uniform I don't see a problem there. Why? Do you mean the armed part? Yes, that's somewhat problematic, and I would find any armed guy at a protest problematic. But that's america for ya, right?

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?!

 

[Grisu]

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?!

true that, but what about that obscure other part? something about abridging the freedom of speech and the right of the people peacable to assemble....or something?

 

[Commodore]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...ino-hateful-eight-boycott-20151102-story.html

He's got a film coming out and he angered the cops who are threatening a boycott. Tarantino offered up some heated rhetoric during an anti-police brutality protest referring to cops as murderers - the context being the recent spate of unarmed brown people being killed.

Obviously he wasn't accusing all cops of murder, but they're still upset for contributing to the anti-police climate. This and the proliferation of camera phones surrounding cops interacting with the public has led to the Ferguson Effect, a reluctance for cops to do their jobs.

There's irony in that, cops dont want other people scrutinizing their behavior but thats how they make their living.

Now, if I were to criticize politicians could they organize a boycott against me? Isn't that a form of censorship? These are employees of the state calling for a boycott of a movie, a project many people sacrificed to create.

I dont want my government organizing boycotts against the citizenry.

"The police" are not organizing a boycott. It is the members of the police union that are organizing it. What's the difference you ask? The difference is this action is not receiving the official sanction and blessing of the police department or the city/state government they are subordinate to. The organizers are not acting in an official capacity for this boycott.

So your point that this is the government attempting censorship through boycott is completely wrong and reeks of sensationalism. I also find it funny that a group of citizens is exercising their right to free speech and you want to cry "oppression!" simply because of the employment those citizens have chosen (and probably because you disagree with their cause).

 

[Camikaze]

Saying that unions of government employees shouldn't be allowed to take political positions seems to be suggesting that government employees shouldn't be allowed to unionise. Demanding better working conditions or a greater share of the government's purse are political positions.

I agree that police unions can sometimes be a bit insidious, given the economic incentive to increase the powers of law enforcement, but I'm not really seeing a problem here.

 

[Borachio]

This study seems to contradict that hypothesis.

I only said that the it's possible that fake violence may have harmful effects.

What strikes me most is the behaviour of mirror neurons.

The causes of violence in society are complex. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if there's no direct correlation between the amount of violence seen on screen and violence in real life. (Lack of correlation in this case doesn't imply lack of causation.) It may be that watching violence has absolutely no effect at all on the viewer - in which case all advertizers are wasting their time - or it may be that it does and the decreasing rates of violence are due to some other countervailing factors outweighing the effects of screen violence.

Mind you I've also found references to studies that say the opposite. Either way I don't see a movie director who is himself not violent denouncing violence as being hypocritical. Can a musician sing about the consumption of hamburgers and then the next day speak out against the sort of animal abuse that goes on in slaughter houses? Why not? The content of the art created by the individual is just that - art - it is not violent in itself.

I'm just not sure that you can separate art from life in this way. Surely if art is to mean anything at all it has to reflect, imitate, and enter into some kind of inter-penetrating relationship with real life?

Morality, after all, is a seamless cloak. (I've heard it said.)

In the case of Tarantino, I could grant your point if the movies he makes used violence to highlight how harmful, and simply unnecessary, it is. But I don't think he does. I think he uses violence in a cynical, gratuitous, and titillating manner. Simply to pander to what he thinks his audience wants.

Mind you, I haven't seen any of his movies in a long time. His style may have changed.

 

[Flying Pig]

I only said that the it's possible that fake violence may have harmful effects.

What strikes me most is the behaviour of mirror neurons.

The causes of violence in society are complex. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if there's no direct correlation between the amount of violence seen on screen and violence in real life. (Lack of correlation in this case doesn't imply lack of causation.) It may be that watching violence has absolutely no effect at all on the viewer - in which case all advertizers are wasting their time - or it may be that it does and the decreasing rates of violence are due to some other countervailing factors outweighing the effects of screen violence.




I'm just not sure that you can separate art from life in this way. Surely if art is to mean anything at all it has to reflect, imitate, and enter into some kind of inter-penetrating relationship with real life?

Morality, after all, is a seamless cloak. (I've heard it said.)

In the case of Tarantino, I could grant your point if the movies he makes used violence to highlight how harmful, and simply unnecessary, it is. But I don't think he does. I think he uses violence in a cynical, gratuitous, and titillating manner. Simply to pander to what he thinks his audience wants.

Mind you, I haven't seen any of his movies in a long time. His style may have changed.

A similar argument runs that playing rugby teaches boys to be violent, because they crash into and use force on each other on the pitch, so that carries over into general life. In fact, the opposite usually happens: being able to find an outlet for energy and physical competition on the pitch means that you don't feel the need to do it in situations where it's not expected or wanted. I suspect you could make a similar case for violence on screen.