As to my previous comment, I hadn't realized that Dan Cathy was
actually refusing to serve food to gays, not just expressing his
feeling about gay marriages. So I withdraw my remark.
Keith
At 19:09 06/08/2012, REH wrote:
I remember when restaurant owners posted signs that they "reserved the right
to refuse service to anyone" which meant blacks. It took both legislation
and boycotts to stop that trash. Businesses are service tools. You have
the honor of starting a business with all of the good of the society behind
you from taxes to highways, to education etc.
When the "Whole Foods" guy used his business to make his ignorant views
representative of his success, we stopped going to Whole Foods and haven't
been back. If he's an idiot enough to alienate his clients then he's an
idiot enough to cut corners on our food health. As for chicken? Cutting
corners is the name of the game. What kind of spiritual person is that?
REH
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 3:44 PM
To: [email protected]; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME
DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: [Futurework] Chick-fil-A and Internet Freedoms
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of PFIR
(People For Internet Responsibility) Announcement List
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 2:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ PFIR ] Chick-fil-A and Internet Freedoms
Chick-fil-A and Internet Freedoms
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000975.html
Personally, I strongly support the concept of gay marriage. Nor have I ever
been within a Chick-fil-A restaurant.
But for many of us who spend a good portion of our lives concerned about the
encroaching loss of freedoms on the Internet, watching the unfolding of the
ongoing Chick-fil-A "gay marriage" saga has been a painfully depressing
experience.
When Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy stated that he defined marriage as the
union between a man and a woman -- that is, the historically traditional
viewpoint -- not only he, but also the individual restaurants and workers in
the Chick-fil-A chain were immediately subjected to what can only be
described as a scathing round of attacks, based solely on Cathy's citing his
personal opinion.
Ironically, many of these attacks came from individuals, parties, and groups
who are normally associated with progressive attitudes and causes (a notable
exception was the virtually always consistent ACLU, which quickly noted
dangers in the expanding vitriol).
Naturally, it is completely within the rights of individuals and
non-government groups to protest views with which they don't agree, and in
the case of a situation such as the Chick-fil-A controversy, to vote with
their wallets by withholding their patronage from the firm.
But the major turn of events, which had the perverse impact of triggering
the "Streisand Effect" and an outpouring of support for Chick-fil-A, was the
pronouncements of various big city politicians implying that they would try
to specifically ban, eject, or otherwise interfere with the business of
Chick-fil-A in their jurisdictions, based solely on Dan Cathy's gay marriage
remark (not, apparently, based on any accusations of violated regulations or
laws on the part of Chick-fil-A).
That some politicians would cynically sense an opportunity to score points
in this realm is not unexpected, even though such actions by government
targeting Chick-fil-A would be slam dunk unconstitutional.
After all, the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment was
specifically drafted to protect unpopular viewpoints from government
attacks. The Founding Fathers knew all too well what attacks on speech by
government were all about.
And in fact, most of these opportunistic politicos quickly reversed their
boisterous threats against Chick-fil-A, presumably after horrified calls
from their legal staffs.
But again, this is the sort of behavior we have unfortunately come to expect
from many politicians.
What was much less expected, and extremely disheartening, was to see various
progressive forces cheering the obviously repressive threats of those
politicians, with an explicit and frankly terrifying disregard for
constitutionally-protected First Amendment freedom of speech concerns.
They were distressingly somewhat reminiscent of the torch-bearing mobs of
old, substituting emotion for logic -- in this case equating an opinion
regarding gay marriage with illegal discrimination.
(Obviously, any cases of genuine discrimination in violation of laws would
be actionable, but by and large this was not being invoked in these
protests.)
Those of us who spoke out in favor of the First Amendment in this case, even
as we expressed our support for gay marriage, were still mercilessly
attacked in some venues.
Outside of the shame and counterproductive attention that the First
Amendment deniers have brought upon themselves in this matter, these events
also may illuminate key aspects of the battle for freedom of speech on the
Internet as well.
Much like the protesters attempting revenge on Chick-fil-A in response to a
legal pronouncement of its president's opinion, we see various forces on the
Internet attempting to impose their own interests via repressive actions
against the Internet at large.
Various traditional entertainment interests such as the RIAA and MPAA, and
newer groups like the cyber-fearmongers exploiting overblown cyberwar fears,
continue their efforts at subverting the legal and legislative systems to
benefit their own financial interests -- at vast cost to the legitimate
cause of Internet freedoms.
Calls for search engine censorship, vast surveillance and anti-encryption
regimes, oppressive domain takedowns absent legitimate due process -- and on
and on. These are the tools being deployed to undermine freedom on the Net.
And much like those politicians willing to throw the Constitution's First
Amendment under the bus in the name of denouncing Chick-fil-A, we see groups
aligned against Internet freedoms who are so focused on their own narrow
interests, that they simply don't care how much collateral and long-lasting
damage they'll do to the Internet community and freedoms in general in
pursuit of their goals.
Of course the global Internet doesn't have a First Amendment, nor a
Constitution at all for that matter.
So we must depend on national governments -- or perhaps more realistically,
the world's Internet users themselves -- to see clearly the enormous risks
brought to bear by muzzling freedom of speech, especially on the Net, and
particularly when controversial issues are in focus.
Throughout human history, the most powerful weapons of suppression used by
governments against their own citizens haven't been swords or arrows, or
even guns and bullets -- but rather control over information and speech.
When we willingly endorse the obliteration of others' speech rights, even
for what we might consider to be worthy causes, we inevitably provide
powerful ammunition for those forces who will joyously use the same logic
and means to attack our most cherished goals and beliefs.
Perhaps something to keep in mind -- at home, at work, on the Internet, and
even at the local fast food drive-through.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein ([email protected]): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility:
http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
- Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance:
http://www.gctip.org
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog:
http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter:
Google+http://vortex.com/t-lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
pfir mailing list
http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
