0 thoughts on “Thanks Matt, for offering a different perspective, even though you’re sure to take some heat for it. …”
Interesting perspective, but academically incorrect in several key points to the argument. CEO Cathy’s speech is corporate speech, not private speech. Being human does not necessarily equate with being a private citizen, particularly when your corporation is funneling the money into systematized inequality. Using the First Amendment as a smoke screen to tear down the Fourteenth is deplorable. I’m glad he chose to share his opinion, and no doubt he’ll get plenty of heat he doesn’t deserve, but he definitely deserves some. The same is true of Mr. Cathy.
Yeah, but he’s a twenty-year-old, self-admitted-armchair-constitutional-scholar, so I give him some slack. Just some, mind you, for being brave enough to publically say something not on anyone’s talking points.
I would like to lend him my Constitutional Law and Civil Rights & Liberties textbooks. After he reads through all 10″ of them, he should have this talk again.
What Michael Baker said. It saddens me when well-meaning people mistake ‘market forces’ for ‘censorship’. -_-
People choose one product or company over another for all kinds of reasons. Political/religious inclinations seem no less valid a reason to vote with your dollar than any other.
If I say I do not eat at Chick-fil-A because I dislike their food, most people would accept it. If I do not eat there because I do not eat meat, some people might get defensive, but generally they let it go. If I do not eat there because I do not wish to give my money to organizations that lobby against my own interests, suddenly I am violating the First Amendment?!
I do not think corporate personhood has much bearing on this argument. Even if Chick-fil-A counts as a person and has First Amendment rights, none of this had anything to do with the First Amendment to begin with! At all! >_<
Most bloggers feel ‘authorative’ on a wide variety of topics they are not authorities on. Arm-chair scholars aren’t real scholars. The latter actually takes work.
Yes, Mr. Cathy is free to express his opinion, and his company is free to give money to whatever organization it wants. The consumers are free to criticize them and not give them money. That is how the market works.
oh i know, but if you can’t write, you won’t be published all that much, and you risk no one taking you seriously even if you happen to be more of an expert in a particular field than your peers. but you know, ghost writing or someting. 🙂
Also, his conclusion should have read “I will continue to let them spend my money to take away my rights so that I can have waffle fries, and you shouldn’t be mad at me for that.” That’s really what he means to say.
Prince Wonder my mother was an administrative assistant for the department of a very well regarded University and had to deal with the writing of her well regarded and highly paid PhD bosses….you’d be shocked at just how bad it was.
Its an art, frankly, to be a good writer. A lot of brilliant people in their fields just operate from the wrong side of the brain to be as brilliant in their writing.
Zephram Farrington encapsulates my feelings on this issue; it’s not about first amendment rights, and if it is, the CFA supporters need to respect the rights of the opposition to express their disdain and not shop there.
That’s stupid… The article has been flagged as inappropriate now and is ‘under review.’ YOu can still get to it, but… for what? Having his constitutional law a bit off?
Interesting perspective, but academically incorrect in several key points to the argument. CEO Cathy’s speech is corporate speech, not private speech. Being human does not necessarily equate with being a private citizen, particularly when your corporation is funneling the money into systematized inequality. Using the First Amendment as a smoke screen to tear down the Fourteenth is deplorable. I’m glad he chose to share his opinion, and no doubt he’ll get plenty of heat he doesn’t deserve, but he definitely deserves some. The same is true of Mr. Cathy.
]]>The balls on that guy!
]]>Yeah, but he’s a twenty-year-old, self-admitted-armchair-constitutional-scholar, so I give him some slack. Just some, mind you, for being brave enough to publically say something not on anyone’s talking points.
]]>I would like to lend him my Constitutional Law and Civil Rights & Liberties textbooks. After he reads through all 10″ of them, he should have this talk again.
]]>We really should decide, once and for all, if and when we treat corporations as persons or not.
]]>Shaun Burks like everything else, it’s relative to when it strengthens our own argument 🙂
]]>What Michael Baker said. It saddens me when well-meaning people mistake ‘market forces’ for ‘censorship’. -_-
People choose one product or company over another for all kinds of reasons. Political/religious inclinations seem no less valid a reason to vote with your dollar than any other.
If I say I do not eat at Chick-fil-A because I dislike their food, most people would accept it. If I do not eat there because I do not eat meat, some people might get defensive, but generally they let it go. If I do not eat there because I do not wish to give my money to organizations that lobby against my own interests, suddenly I am violating the First Amendment?!
I do not think corporate personhood has much bearing on this argument. Even if Chick-fil-A counts as a person and has First Amendment rights, none of this had anything to do with the First Amendment to begin with! At all! >_<
]]>Well… therein lies our real problem.
]]>Most bloggers feel ‘authorative’ on a wide variety of topics they are not authorities on. Arm-chair scholars aren’t real scholars. The latter actually takes work.
]]>Yes, Mr. Cathy is free to express his opinion, and his company is free to give money to whatever organization it wants. The consumers are free to criticize them and not give them money. That is how the market works.
]]>Its the whole ‘published’ thing I find a bit silly. Plenty of amazing thinkers that can’t write for crap.
]]>oh i know, but if you can’t write, you won’t be published all that much, and you risk no one taking you seriously even if you happen to be more of an expert in a particular field than your peers. but you know, ghost writing or someting. 🙂
]]>Also, his conclusion should have read “I will continue to let them spend my money to take away my rights so that I can have waffle fries, and you shouldn’t be mad at me for that.” That’s really what he means to say.
]]>Prince Wonder my mother was an administrative assistant for the department of a very well regarded University and had to deal with the writing of her well regarded and highly paid PhD bosses….you’d be shocked at just how bad it was.
]]>Its an art, frankly, to be a good writer. A lot of brilliant people in their fields just operate from the wrong side of the brain to be as brilliant in their writing.
]]>Zephram Farrington encapsulates my feelings on this issue; it’s not about first amendment rights, and if it is, the CFA supporters need to respect the rights of the opposition to express their disdain and not shop there.
]]>That’s
]]>stupid… The article has been flagged as inappropriate now and is ‘under review.’ YOu can still get to it, but… for what? Having his constitutional law a bit off?Shaun Burks I’m putting my money on “the right person heard him say the wrong thing” more than he isn’t a Constitutional Scholar 🙂
]]>or the wrong person heard him say the right thing.
]]>While still not a violation of the First Amendment, that does constitute wrong-head peer censorship. I imagine the review will clear the article.
]]>I debated the phrasing…decided to go with POV of the arbiter of justice and freedom who did the reporting 😉
]]>Well, however you go with it Brian Johnson, its always going to depend on the reader’s perspective. 🙂
]]>Shaun Burks true….very true….
]]>