Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Ross Says it All
I meant it as an analogy. In retrospect — and given the content of the rest of the conversation — it was a poorly-chosen one.
Assume you live in the town of said pizza joint. Hungry, you go online to check out local pizza places. One of them has a 1.5 star rating and hundreds of reviews that you (reasonably) assume are related to the quality of service and the product. No way are you going to choose that pizza.
There are lots of other ways of engaging with and demonstrating against the pizza place without making it difficult for other consumers to quickly access useful information about them.
Question for the lawyers: Can a business be harrassed, according to the law?
You’re obviously playing devil’s advocate here, and doing a darn fine job of it.
a) You are making very strong and unsubstantiated assumptions about how I make my purchasing decisions. In fact, I would not choose a pizza place based on the criteria you describe. I (almost) always base my decision on the geographical proximity of the pizza place first, and then my own past experience with the pizzza place second.
b) You have not convinced me that a person who does make purchasing decisions based on those criteria is doing so illegitimately.
If it is illegitimate for a person to make a decision based on a rating without reading the comments that led to that rating, then it seems to me that it would follow that this sort of website is illegitimate in and of itself, and should therefore be banned.
I look at the stars, then I look as some of the reviews, to see why they gave that rating.
We had a nun (I think she taught 6th Grade Social Studies) at Our Lady of Perpetual Help who liked to break down why we should not “assume” by breaking the word “assume” down.l
I’m entirely serious. If I may paraphrase what you wrote, it is my understanding that you believe that any speech that may lead to others engaging in violence is illegitimate and therefore (presumably) should not be protected.
Or, in the words of Voltaire, “when we hear news, we should always wait for the sacrament of confirmation.”
Are you implying that any person who disapproves of SSM on religious grounds is an idiot? Or are you simply saying that holding such a belief and espousing it is the mark of an idiot? If so, what other religious doctrines are idiotic to believe, live according to, or share in public?
I think there is concrete evidence here that the speech in question did lead to actual violence (rather than hypothetical violence) of a sort. It may not have been physical violence, but who can contend that this family and their business is materially whole after the treatment they’ve received.
In this day and age, everyone should know just how open and honest they can be. What else do the owners of the pizzeria innocently think they can do that are unwise?
This whole thing is one step removed from Michael Brown’s Stepfather shouting “Burn this B!tch Down!” to an already angry crowd of ignorant people.
He should be prosecuted for inciting a riot just as these over-the-top Yelpers should if actual harm came to the owners of this pizza place at their behest.
I just tried to donate to Memories Pizza over at The Corner but couldn’t get the link to work. I wonder if dear old Google has shut it down.
I will reparaphrase according to this new understanding: Any speech that may lead to a family or business being materially unwhole is illegitimate and therefore (presumably) should not be protected.
After all, whether or not the violence actually occurs is merely a measure of whether or not the speech was successful, not a measure of whether or not the speech was legitimate. If one utters threats against another and no violence occurs it does not make the threat legitimate speech.
Actually, they shut down because of the threats, not the negative Yelp reviews.
But those things are true. Especially the last part.
A point which I later conceded.
That being said, if the pizza place was shut down due to threats off violence rather than due to negative public opinion, are you arguing that then means that government violence is needed to force pizza places to cater gay weddings?
Do you believe the destruction of another’s life and livelihood over taking a minority stance on a political/social issue is morally just or not? It sounds a lot like you’re advocating that all’s fair in love and war on this topic. There are behaviors (and speech) that, while legal, are villainous. When the conduct or speech is a cause of actual violence or harm then law kicks in.
Try this.
http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza
a) Do you always answer questions with questions?
b) I think it is entirely morally legitimate to express one’s disagreement with the policies of a business and to encourage others to boycott that business based on that disagreement.
c) I do not think it’s legitimate to utter threats, to knowingly spread false or and/or fraudulent information, or to encourage violence, etc.
d) If a business suffers financially due to the perfectly legal actions of others (such as a boycott) simply because I expressed my disagreement with the business’ policies, I would not feel culpable.
d) If a business suffers due to the illegal actions of others (such as violence or fraud) simply because I expressed my disagreement with the business’ policies, I still would not feel culpable. One is not responsible for other people’s actions simply because one expresses disagreement with a business’ policies.
a) No, not always. But, you’ve mischaracterized enough of each statement that it was time to turn the tables.
b) Agreed. However, this is not what has occurred in this instance.
c) You should have stopped after the first few phrases in the sentence because “if others engage in violence or the business suffers financially simply because I expressed my disagreement with the business’ policies” is not the situation we are dealing with in this. You are arguing against a hypothetical rather than against the reality.
d) Refer to c. These people did not merely express disagreement.
I’m sorry you feel that was my intention. I was trying to clarify precisely what the opposing positions actually are by paraphrasing my understanding of the positions into brief axioms.
Not true. From my understanding, every person who has commented online against this pizza place is being condemned as being part of a “lynch mob”, not just the ones who uttered threats or spread false information. THAT is the position I am arguing against.
IMHO, use of phrases like “these people” support my contention that every person that merely comments online against this pizza place is being treated as equivalent to those who utter threats or spread false information.
This is what I would call living in the technicality rather than reality. No, not every single person advocated or participated in illegal action just as not all who are part of a lynch mob touch the rope.
Pizzeria closed because of death threats. The market has been good to them.
I’m afraid you are off base on this one.
a) I’ve conceded the point about threats, readily, frequently, and happily.
b) So, again, if the only thing that hurt the business was threats of violence, and if the market has been good to the business subsequent to this protest, is the conclusion then that government force is necessary to force pizza joints to cater gay weddings?
By the same token, not every person that simply expressed the opinion that the accused was guilty is part of the lynch mob.
Are they the ones we’re discussing in this? If so then we’re debating about two separate groups.
You’re the one who brought up the analogy of the lynch mob in the first place!
To quote my teenagers: duh. I’m not the one who started saying I’m condemning all those who were not part of it. Your statements in whole could be paraphrased: those not part of the mob should not be condemned with the mob. On this we have no disagreement. My statement can be: those who are part of the mob should be condemned for the actions of the mob.
I think that comparisons to National Socialism are over the top.
And if you disagree with me then you, sir, are worse than Hitler.
That’s not the market, Frank. That is tribalism and charity.