- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
Only if you assume these companies aren't entitled to their own freedom of expression.
The Confederate Flag
- Thread starter Superior Watermelon
- Start date
- Joined
- May 29, 2013
Companies do not exist to uphold society's moral standards. They exist to make money. The decision to not sell the flag is most likely a financial one as they fear it could hurt their bottom line in the long run. It is their right to do so much as it is their right to sell it if they wish. There is nothing more important in an open society than freedom of expression, but you do not need a corporation to enable this for you. If it is important enough to you, you'll make a flag yourself. It's pretty easy to do. A corporation deciding to not sell a product is not a violation of freedom of expression because as long as it is legal and profitable to sell a product, some company somewhere will do just that.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
Some companies choose not to sell confederate flags.
Some companies choose to sell silicone dragon dicks.
It's really just up to them, morals or no.
Some companies choose to sell silicone dragon dicks.
It's really just up to them, morals or no.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
how does this forum always bring it back to penis
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
Lately you're yelling about our Rebel Flag,
and wanting us to take it down.
It represents our history and Southern Pride,
and rebel blood on the ground.
So go to hell nigger, I'm telling you loud and clear:
It ain't coming down! The rebel flag is staying right here!
Hey, quit your bitching niggers, and let things be.
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
I see what you did there :^)
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2014
We are a band of brothers and native to the soil,
Fighting for the property we gained by honest toil;
And when our rights were threatened, the cry rose near and far,
Hurrah! for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, hurrah!
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Fighting for the property we gained by honest toil;
And when our rights were threatened, the cry rose near and far,
Hurrah! for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, hurrah!
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
Well well well, lookie here. We got us some yankee ass cityboys tryna erase our heritage!
Organic Fapcup
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
Look, this is just my opinion, but we should just kill or enslave anyone whose melanin concentration exceeds a certain number and/or have slanted eyes. That way we could either get rid of the niggers, spics, chinks and gooks or make them useful to ol' Dixie.
Also we should nuke the Northern states for being traitors or something.
Also we should nuke the Northern states for being traitors or something.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
Teddy
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
All this controversy over the rebel flag sure makes me wonder if "The South will Rise Again" as so many YouTube comments say.
It's 2015 South. When will you rise again? We do not know the day or the hour I suppose.
It's 2015 South. When will you rise again? We do not know the day or the hour I suppose.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Because it's not coercing anyone else to do anything. If anything, it would be a violation of freedom of expression to force people to sell things they don't want to sell, when they are themselves expressing something by refusing to sell them.
It does not violate my rights that I can't go to amazon.com and buy a confederate flag, when I can just as easily go to any of the many, many other places that sell them. My only problem is that I might have to wait a while, because most of these places have red lettering on the item saying it's temporarily out of stock due to high demand.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2014
One day, the North will fail. Their economy will slip into darkness, their people will return to the bowels of immorality, and God will forsake them for their debauchery. They will then turn to the South. They will beg for our help, attempt to beg our forgiveness for holding the Civil War against us for 150 years, and beg for our morals. We'll simply stare at them, rocking in our rocking chairs and sipping our regionally-varying-levels-of-sweet tea, and we'll hear their pleas, smiling as we tell them the one thing we've been saying for years:
"Bless your heart."
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
Stars and confederate stripes forever, ya bunch of fuckin' Yankees.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
To elaborate on what I said here, this kind of gets into an argument about corporate personhood.
It's definitely a tricky topic, but to some extent, I think corporate personhood, at least as it applies to first amendment rights, does have some value.
For example, consider all the corporations that are selling GMO-free foods and bullshit like that. Science (and the FDA) has ruled that GMO foods are indistinguishable, health-wise, from normal foods. But there's still a lot of issues behind them. Like ethics, for example, considering Monsanto has a shitty reputation.
Because of corporate (first amendment) personhood, corporations are permitted to discriminate against GMO foods. This runs down the ladder all the way down to the consumer, who is permitted to vote with their dollars on whether or not to support GMO foods. It would be inappropriate for the government to step in and make GMO foods illegal without scientific justification. And it'd be equally inappropriate for the government to step in and make GMO foods mandatory, considering the ethical issues.
Ironically enough, corporate personhood gives consumers a voice where otherwise they'd be up shit creek.
Heh, also, to clarify, I think almost all arguments against GMO foods are done by crazy dipshits and there's almost no science to back it up. It's today's version of anti-vaxxers. (But anti-vaxxers are still around, so it's even worse.) The best arguments against GMO foods are ethical arguments (which, admittedly, Monsanto is pretty shitty) and perhaps arguments based on species diversity.
(GMO foods are just an example. You could say the same thing about crazy christian groups or free range eggs or whatever people are obsessing about now.)
Addendum: Also, corporate personhood is shitty when the corporations start lobbying for their own existence. Things like that should be regulated like crazy.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Frankly, your argument is bizarre. Decisions over content by businesses are made every day. You seem to be suggesting that book stores have the same obligation to provide content as public libraries do.
If Amazon decided tomorrow that they didn't want to sell Malkin's book, that would be fine. And if someone wanted to react by starting a boycott of Amazon to hurt them financially, that would be fine too. They are a businesses, not a public trust. If you were talking about the postal service refusing to ship her books, or libraries banning her books, you would have a point, but private enterprises should be able to disassociate themselves from products and ideas by not selling them just like you do by not buying them.
You also seem to be confused about the "principle of the First Amendment." That relates to the government restricting ideas. It's very particular to that because requiring other people to identify with ideas that they disagree with (which you suggest ought to happen) is also an infringement upon liberty.
I really wouldn't worry about it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
"Nothing fills me with deeper sadness than to see a Southern man apologizing for the defense we made of our inheritance. Our cause was so just, so sacred, that had I known all that has come to pass, had I known what was to be inflicted upon me, all that my country was to suffer, all that our posterity was to endure, I would do it all over again."
- Jefferson Finis Davis, President of the Confederate States of America
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
You already missed the point completely with the first sentence of your third paragraph. Free speech and the First Amendment are not, and have never been, the same thing.
Again, my objection to this isn't because what they're doing is a violation of the letter of the First Amendment. That never has, and never will be my argument.
What I'm saying is that freedom of expression is a moral principle worth sticking towards regardless of weather or not you have the ability to get away with violating it. There are countless instances where people and corporations practice some form of censorship, which are entirely in the clear legally, but are still ethically reprehensible. George Lucas, for instance, with his locking away of the Original Star Wars films' masters. There's nothing illegal about it whatsoever, but it's still morally wrong for him to do so. And morality is infinitely more valuable than any law.
I also know that Star Wars movies and Confederate Flags are far from the most important or heroic examples. But the examples not being the most important things to society doesn't put this thing any more morally in the clear. Two of the biggest fights over free speech in recent history were over The Interview, and 2 Live Crew. Both are things the world would be better off without, but both demand the same protections as anything else.
Have you deliberately ignored everything that goes on in this site?
I don't agree with all of his opinions, but @Null has consistently championed freedom of expression every time the topic comes up. Yes, posters have been banned for things like spergery or posting in the Mr. Enter thread. But not once has a poster been banned for their views or their ideas. @NostalgiaJazzAdmirer hasn't been banned. @umad hasn't been banned. @Holden hasn't been banned. If Marijan were drowning, I'm certain Null would toss him a cannonball, and yet he still won't ban him.
That's how you value freedom of expression.