Supreme Court: money = Constitionally protected speech
Ergo:
Withholding spending (e.g., boycotting) = Constitionally protected speech
Funny how the right wing forgets these pesky things when they’re on the receiving end. Then again, they “boycotted” Starbucks by buying coffee and pouring it down the drain - and smashing Kourig coffee makers when Hnnity got his fee-fees hurt. They’re not that bright.
He is a convicted felon. I have no idea where he lives nowadays. But he was living in NY when he committed the felonies and as far as I can tell, for federal felonies like his, there is no such thing as a State Certificate of Relief from Civil Disabilities (usually from being convicted of a felony). Anyway, the last time I looked into it there wasn’t.
It reminds me of the colossal flip on marriage equality but in fast motion.
Just in case you haven’t seen today’s NY Daily News cover
How long can FedEx hold out? Watch their stock plunge this week.
This needs to be a combination of unrelenting pressure on those companies that do business with the NRA, and a massive voter registration drive for the mid-terms.
UPS still stands by ALEC and they do the NRA’s chopshop legislation promoted in state legislatures all around the country by Republicans, sometimes sight unseen. A lot of times, lawmakers don’t even read the shit they push in their homestate legislatures. They just sit back and wait for the check in the mail towards their campaigns. As long as people get wise to how these bad actors work, it can lead to a big start in dissembling and taking down their power over our our legislators and our democracy.
When I first read this I thought “Well Spankee has lost D’Souza because his notecard revealed an inability to show grief or empathy except in front of cameras and with prompting.”
Could it be possible? Maybe one day conservatives will wake up an recognize the bloated fraud they backed? Maybe they’ll turn their backs on him? Maybe even stand with the people who are trying to get him out of a position of power? Maybe consider that the crimes he denies have a strong foundation?
NAAAAAH. (Thanks Steve Martin)
I was kind of amazed that they could get discounts on life insurance. Do the policies have riders that exclude death by gun? Will they look at those people getting NRA discounts and pull their rates back up to the standard level?
ETA: and Wayne really knows how to give those companies encouragement to reconsider their partnerships - calling them cowards doesn’t exactly win them back to your side.
Well, the ammosexuals are responding to the ever expanding NRA boycott…
LOL.
I think that it’s even worse than that. They continuously stoke fears that there so many dangerous people out there that you need guns to protect yourself from them.
S.A.F.E. Communities
Societies
Against
Firearm
Enterprises
Our goal is to ban the sale and trading of guns within our city limits just like many communities do with alcohol. A community has the right to be “dry” and likewise it can ban the sale of guns and armaments within city limits; even if exceptions are made for shotguns and hunting rifles, our communities will be safer if we do this.
From WaPo
None of the video-streaming giants, Apple, Google’s YouTube, or Amazon (the company’s founder, Jeffrey P. Bezos, owns the The Washington Post) have acknowledged a petition and viral demands to take NRA videos offline.
If they do, and the world’s largest tech corporations effectively declare the NRA a pariah, boycotters have proposed plans to advance on the gun rights group’s power centers: its political capital and massive funding, which for decades have made the NRA one of the most feared lobbies in the United States.
I dunno, kind of ambivalent there on First Amendment grounds. If it’s a service anyone can use, well, they’re anyone. They aren’t advocating anything illegal—the legality itself is why we have a problem.
Unless the service has been granted some sort of monopoly by the government, the First Amendment doesn’t really enter into it, especially since “gun owners” are not a protected class.
If that was the case, nobody could ever boycott a business.
More on principle than as a matter of law. These media are so powerful, and for many out-of-power entities so necessary for communication, that I’m loath to have the access granted or denied from above if you’re adhering to the terms of service. Might come a day when a good idea is seen, at least in the beginning, as obnoxious by the majority.
I hear ya’. I’m equally loath to have the government dictating to private media companies about what content they’re required to carry. I don’t know what the solution is - perhaps the concentration of media power is the real heart of the issue, and that’s what needs to be addressed. Google is like The Borg.
To be clear, by “from above” I meant as a Facebook or Google policy. And again, I just happen to near-reflexively tend to want to give people a hearing, even if I really don’t like what they want to say. I don’t think the NRA communicates honestly, I don’t think their motives are legitimate, I think they’re bad and they should feel bad. I also think we need to have more sophisticated understandings of the role these online media giants play in our societies. All that said, if the entire society says in one voice “UGH WE HATE YOU DIE SOON” to the NRA I’d be delighted. But I’d be less delighted if it were shut out of FB and Google because of that sentiment. Just not the way I’d prefer to take the fight to them.
Conservatives used to emphasize with crime victims and even help to pass laws championing their cause. Yes plenty of times there was a lot of demagoguery. Now they are just a bunch of trolls.
