I get it, and at least those things are quantifiable. But what I think we're looking for with "I am specifically looking for “progressive”. ¶ San Francisco, it turns out, is center-left. ¶ I’m looking for left." are things like a Deputy Municipal Pronoun Promotion Officer, a Wymyn's Mutual Business and Self-Esteem Support Collective and Book Exchange, needle sanitization stations in the public parks, and a self-serve kombucha bar called "BLACK BLOC BOOCH" that doesn't open until 9:00 p.m.
Which, now that I write it out, sounds more than a bit like how a right-winger would parody the TV show Portlandia so credit where it's due, Jay may not have been that far off with his second guess.
Good luck. Municipal governments are run by and for the benefit of land developers. You'll find Democrats there, but only the kinds of Democrats who like land developers, not landlord-lambastin' progressives.
"I was told that I do not need to report real estate sales when the buyer is a dear friend of many many years who makes substantial political donations to my wife's partisan advocacy group."
Seattle, maybe? I mean, if you're going to call out the PNW for being Progressivtopia, why not look at Portland's richer, better-dressed big sister?
Maybe Madison? Oh, I hear Chicago is the end-game state of liberal-progressive policies run amuck. And so are Austin, Boston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and the surprisingly left-leaning Salt Lake City.
But we do have the mostest and bestest food carts and craft breweries here, so if you're going to do a drive-by on-the-street report on your TikTok channel, you will at least get a really tasty meal before you fly out to go do your editing and post-production at home without bothering to stick around long enough to learn a thing about what the city is really all about.
Also, Saul said "Bay Area" which is not the same thing as "San Francisco."
I seem to recall that a few months ago we had a discussion here about law students, I think at Hastings, shouting down a speaker invited on campus by the Hastings Federalist Society. Seems at least marginally relevant to this tangent of our thread.
There's a point in A's initial speech beyond which B interrupting or protesting or otherwise barging in with an objection is, if not polite, probably "fair game" as B's own right of free speech. In most cases, I think we'd say that this point doesn't occur until A has had some sort of fair opportunity to articulate a point of view. We ought to be reluctant to say that in all circumstances and all scenarios we must never tolerate any interruptions or heckling, and everyone must always politely wait their turn to speak. There could be no counter-protesting to protestors if this were the rule.
But in the specific incident, it's not always clear when that point of "fair game to heckle" is passed. That's because it's a cultural norm and it's hard to get people to agree on norms, particularly in the moment and particularly when they disagree about the various parties' objectives which, as we agree, at least substantially lenses the way one evaluates how others use various tactics in various situation.
Thinking back to the law students, it's pretty likely that the Federalist Society invited that particular speaker for the purpose of provoking the exact response that they got. Which at least colors my evaluation of all parties involved, none of whom covered themselves with glory.
Is that a defense of a heckler's veto? No, because by definition a heckler's veto is an interruption of someone else's speech that violates the norm I'm referring to. But it is a nuance, because some kinds of interruptions and objections not only can but should be tolerated and incorporated into a culture of free speech.
That may be a case of the 150 "boycotters" identifying (or lucking into) a weak point upon which they can apply pressure very effectively because the decision-makers are timid but powerful.
We may approve or disapprove of their tactic, but I believe that our spot reaction(s) to picking a tactic like that will be substantially and even determinatively informed by our evaluation(s) of the objective.
In this case, I want to see the Chapelle show, therefore I disapprove of putting pressure on timid-but-powerful PR flacks.
But if it's, say, Chick-fil-A (prior corporate behavior iteration)? I disapprove of "pray the gay away" camps, therefore I'm in favor of putting pressure on timid-but-powerful PR flacks.
ETA: Am I arguing "the ends justify the means"? I could see someone thinking that. But among many means available to attempt to effect change, the means of "boycott" hasn't been demonstrated to be sufficently morally questionable as an inherent matter (the way other means like "violence" are) that we need worry about such a thing.
Respectfully, this appears incorrect. Jay's actual words:
It’s the whole “We’re going to call Dave Thomas and get him to stop advertising on All-American Muslim and get that show off the air!” that I have a problem with.
What is the boycotter in “We’re going to call Dave Thomas and get him to stop advertising on All-American Muslim and get that show off the air!” trying to achieve? Explicitly: "get that show [AAM] off the air".
The other two objectives are "Get Slavemade Jeans out of the marketplace" and "Get Burt Likko kicked out of Kohl's."
"Get AAM off the air" looks a lot closer to "Get Slavemade Jeans out of the marketplace" than it does to "Kick Burt Likko out of Kohl's."
We’re just talking about whether it's [calling Dave Thomas and say “stop advertising on AAM!”] something we should be cool with, in theory, or whether it’s something we shouldn’t be cool with, in theory.
If "be cool with" roughly equals "nor morally disapprove of," then okay. Calling Dave is something you're not cool with but I am not willing to categorically condemn. Whether it was successful (AAM was taken off the air) or not (we can still get Double Baconators with cheese, blessings be unto the Pork Gods).
Now we can get to the issue of why calling Dave with that particular message is or is not cool.
I would condemn Calling Dave, but because I don't see any reason to object to airing AAM. AAM doesn't offend me and the only reason I can see to be offended by it is bigotry. I presume you agree that most of AAM's critics were bigots; that most of tge people who called Dave--and who urged a boycott of Wendy's when Dave said back, "fish off, we're sponsoringvthis show,"--were motivated by bigotry. We can and do all condemn bigotry. Certainly both you and I do.
To me, disapproving of the motive for an action (deontology) is a different reason to praise or condemn that action than a disapproval of the action itself (which would be, I suspect, rule utulitarianism), and both of those are different from the act-utilitarian analysis of "what impact would this a have on the world if it were successful?". So I guess what's going on with this discussion is motive versus anticipated results. And yes, these two can be confused with one another in certain (many?) contexts.
Still, it seems like we're moving as though drawn by moral gravity to the inexorable crux question of "What are you trying to achieve?" and the question of "How are you trying to achieve it?" is not so important if the two potential answers are "by a primary boycott" versus "by a secondary boycott."
Sorry man, we can still be friends and all, but this answer dodges the question. Once again:
I might attempt to persuade you to not ... consume X-to-which-I-object. But if you insist on consuming X ... despite my objection, then I am obliged to accept your decision and take no further action.
Do I understand you correctly?
Either I've understood you correctly or I haven't. The question is answered with a "yes" or a "no."
Whether my objection to X is somehow objectively correct (or incorrect, or indeterminate) is irrelevant.
By this I take the meaning that I have power over my consumption choices, and you have power over your consumption choices, but I have no power over your consumption choices nor you over mine.
Restated: I might attempt to persuade you to not buy Slavemade Jeans, or watch All-American Muslim, or otherwise consume X-to-which-I-object. But if you insist on consuming X (jeans, TV shows, whatever) despite my objection, then I am obliged to accept your decision and take no further action.
Is the problem that we don't find any good reason to disapprove of All-American Muslim and therefore don't see a reason to have a primary boycott of the program, while we can easily find a good reason to disapprove of (admittedly hypothetical) Slavemade (tm) Jeans and therefore would approve of a primary boycott of such product?
If that is the case, then the issue is not one of primary versus secondary boycotts, but rather of the moral worth of the thing ultimately objected to?
If the issue is "You should take action to object to the thing that you actually object to, and not take action against other things because they aren't the thing you object to," that would be a principle I could understand (though not agree with).
Hypotheticals are useful to highlight what's going on in actual situations. In other words, they're analytical tools used when attempting to determine the contours of a principle that is purportedly at play. The principle ought to apply in both hypothetical and real-world cases, and indeed it may be easier to both illustrate and test the principle in a hypothetical construct.
If my hypothetical Kohl's secondary boycott is somehow morally bad, it should be morally bad for the same reason that people secondarily boycotting All-American Muslim's sponsors was morally bad.
If my hypothetical Kohl's secondary boycott is morally permissible, then it's difficult for me to understand why the secondary boycott of All-American Muslim's sponsors was morally bad.
Which is all to say, I don't think you've answered the question on the table: can you articulate why a primary boycott is morally permissible but a secondary boycott is not? Whether others agree with the principle is a different question. At this point, I don't even understand what that principle is.
If I were to say, "Jay, you shouldn't buy Slavemade (tm) Jeans, because they are literally made by slaves," you're pretty clearly okay with that.
If I were to say, "Kohl's Department Stores, you shouldn't sell Slavemade (tm) Jeans, because they are literally made by slaves," you maybe do or maybe don't have a problem with that.
If I were to say, "Jay, you shouldn't shop at Kohl's because we asked them to stop selling Slavemade (tm) Jeans and they didn't," you are saying is out of bounds.
Truly, I don't see that there is a principle at issue here. Kohl's is helping sell Slavemade (tm) Jeans. They probably aren't going to notice if I go there and buy Sweatshop Wage (tm) Shirts but not Slavemade (tm) Jeans. But they plausibly might notice if I don't go there at all and try to figure out why, especially if a bunch of my friends join me in refusing to buy from Kohl's. And isn't Kohl's itself doing something plausibly wrong by selling Slavemade (tm) Jeans?
For myself, I do not see any principled reason why one ought not engage in a secondary consumer boycott. The only reason I see to legally prohibit secondary labor boycotts is an arbitrary policy decision to limit the economic damage done by striking. Not sure I see the same sort of thing applying in the consumer arena, and I don't see a moral objection to the practice at all.
Basically the secondary boycotter says to the sponsor of the other entity engaged in a questioned activity, "You aren't doing the wrong thing directly, but you are economically supporting someone who is doing the bad thing. That means you approve of the bad thing enough that you're willing to pay money to support it, so we aren't going to support you until you stop supporting the people who do the bad thing."
Maybe it's effective maybe it isn't, but I don't see a moral objection to this. (My mind might be changed.)
Texas is a "Constitutional Carry" state. All you need to carry a weapon out in public is a holster, unless you're a felon or have a violent misdemeanor within the past five years.
It is angering to see this going on, because it betrays even the pretense of equality before the law. Perry demonstrates no remorse for his actions. His actions harmed society, not just by the taking of a life (as if that weren't bad enough!) but by demonstrating to people already suspicious of the justice system that they were right to not put their trust in it, that they were right to suspect that people like Perry get treated better than they do.
Consider the way that the justice system treats a person accused of similar crimes who. Is not the beneficiary of a campaign on the part of media figures.
First of all, such a person is more likely than not to be a person of color. Secondly, that person is unlikely to receive such gentle treatment from the police at the crime scene. These first and second facts are not unrelated. I'd love to say that the differential caused by race ends at that point,. But I hope everybody reading this comment knows better.
Once in custody, a person like this will be in processed in lengthy and undignified manner by a reception level jail. In a lot of jurisdictions this involves a strip search which includes a squat so that authorities may be more confident than contraband is not being smuggled into the facility. Conditions within the reception facility very significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, some of which are more racialized than others, but all of which involve a variety of dehumanizing procedures that are effectively intended to indoctrinate the new admittee into a posture of mental inferiority to the uniformed guards.
There is always a delay between admission to the reception facility and an arraignment. Many states have laws requiring an assignment to an attorney at the earliest possible time, but this rarely happens. Because of funding shortages and other systemic problems, many jurisdictions will see people go six months or more before they are assigned a lawyer. Some jurisdictions do not have laws requiring assignment of a lawyer until arraignment occurs. These jurisdictions tend to have longer times between arrest and assignment to an attorney.
Once an attorney is assigned,. The person in the system will find that there are one of hundreds of clients that attorney is tasked to handle. Unsurprisingly, the attorney will typically review that client's file and prepare a strategy. Only very briefly, and only on the day when some other event is occurring the strategy that the attorney picks will typically follow a cookie cutter pattern, but that may be kinda-sorta OK because prosecutors are also overworked, and they too are following cookie cutter patterns.
To be bailed out of jail while all of this is going that typically requires the payment of a significant amount of money to a bail bondsman. Some jurisdictions have abolished bail, to the great displeasure of law and order advocates within the community. It's hard for me to see how jurisdictions can afford to keep people in jail, sometimes for as much as a year, before conviction at public expense. Granted, jail is cheaper than prison, because it doesn't have to elaborately equipped. Jail is intended to be a short term housing facility for people. In custody, where prison is intended to be more or less permanent housing. The result, of course, is that conditions and jails are significantly less humane than conditions and prisons, and if you think conditions and prisons are humane, you are not paying attention.
All of this is before trial. Bear in mind that we are talking about how the state is treating someone who is, at the time, presumed innocent. Well, ostensibly presumed innocent. They aren't getting very much information about the progress of their case. , and that's because the case is not really progressing at all. In theory, the person could insist on their speedy trial rights, but in practice, their attorneys waive those rights so that administrative processing of the court's docket as a whole can proceed in something that passes for an orderly fashion. The system places immense pressure upon the attorneys to make those waivers, and it is far from clear to me at least that the people involved in the system. Even understand what their rights are much less than they're being asked to waive those rights for the benefit of people other than themselves.
This is a significant part of the background of the pressure that participants in the system, both on the prosecution side and on the defense side, feel to make plea bargains. But let's accused person understands at least that much, and insists that they are innocent and demands a trial they might have to have a bit of an argument with their own attorney about that but it is something that a number of defendants seem able to do. So the case goes to trial, and the trial is typically conducted out of evidence folders because very little investigation has been done beyand what initially happened in the day or so after the arrest. People have different opinions about the caliber of public defenders,. But I have seen little evidence to believe that public defenders are any less skilled or less able to present competent defenses, even under these circumstances, then private counsel. So let's assume a good trial experience. , one more a plausible defense is offered,. But there is nevertheless a conviction..
No. The convict is no longer presumed innocent, and will be sentenced within a period of a few weeks of the conviction. If the result of the sntencing is additional time in custody, they will be transferred to a prison. At this point, they may be appointed or may otherwise obtain the services of an appellate attorney to examine the trial for legal errors and present an appeal. Once there appeals process is exhausted. And if the exhaustion of the appeals process results continued incarceration, they have the option of presenting a habeus corpus claim. Under most circumstances, only one habeas corpus claim (and its appurtenant appeals) may challenge the conviction. Meanwhile of course they are living in prison which might be better than jail but is not exactly the kind of existence one would choose for oneself under most circumstances. Let's be clear: prison would be an awful life.
In most cases, executive clemency will not be considered until all of these legal processes are exhausted. If what I'm describing above sounds like it could take years and years, it can. And while those are still theoretically viable procedures, there is very little political incentive for a governor of a state, or the president if it's a federal crime, to consider the granting of clemency. Far easier for the executive to say that the judicial process is not yet exhausted and the system should be given a chance to work on its own merits. So for a significant number of convicts, their terms will expire before their procedural options do.
Mr. Perry appears to have been treated with kid gloves by the police all along. He does not appear to have spent any time in custody at all until after his conviction. This despite the facts and circumstances of his case appearing to indicate guilt from a very early stage he just picked the right victim, such that actors within the system treated him very very well indeed.
He is a convicted and unapologetic murderer, and the system shpuld treat him the way it treats other people similarly-described, before the governor succumbs to pressure from preening perfumed princes of political propaganda purveyors to perpetuate Perry's protracted privileges.
On “TSN Open Mic for the week of 4/10/2023”
I get it, and at least those things are quantifiable. But what I think we're looking for with "I am specifically looking for “progressive”. ¶ San Francisco, it turns out, is center-left. ¶ I’m looking for left." are things like a Deputy Municipal Pronoun Promotion Officer, a Wymyn's Mutual Business and Self-Esteem Support Collective and Book Exchange, needle sanitization stations in the public parks, and a self-serve kombucha bar called "BLACK BLOC BOOCH" that doesn't open until 9:00 p.m.
Which, now that I write it out, sounds more than a bit like how a right-winger would parody the TV show Portlandia so credit where it's due, Jay may not have been that far off with his second guess.
"
Good luck. Municipal governments are run by and for the benefit of land developers. You'll find Democrats there, but only the kinds of Democrats who like land developers, not landlord-lambastin' progressives.
"
"I was told that I do not need to report real estate sales when the buyer is a dear friend of many many years who makes substantial political donations to my wife's partisan advocacy group."
"Ummm.... Who told you that, Your Honor?"
"Well, Harlan Crow, of course. I trust him!"
"
Seattle, maybe? I mean, if you're going to call out the PNW for being Progressivtopia, why not look at Portland's richer, better-dressed big sister?
Maybe Madison? Oh, I hear Chicago is the end-game state of liberal-progressive policies run amuck. And so are Austin, Boston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and the surprisingly left-leaning Salt Lake City.
But we do have the mostest and bestest food carts and craft breweries here, so if you're going to do a drive-by on-the-street report on your TikTok channel, you will at least get a really tasty meal before you fly out to go do your editing and post-production at home without bothering to stick around long enough to learn a thing about what the city is really all about.
Also, Saul said "Bay Area" which is not the same thing as "San Francisco."
On “Do the Right Thing (Public Officials Behaving Badly)”
I seem to recall that a few months ago we had a discussion here about law students, I think at Hastings, shouting down a speaker invited on campus by the Hastings Federalist Society. Seems at least marginally relevant to this tangent of our thread.
There's a point in A's initial speech beyond which B interrupting or protesting or otherwise barging in with an objection is, if not polite, probably "fair game" as B's own right of free speech. In most cases, I think we'd say that this point doesn't occur until A has had some sort of fair opportunity to articulate a point of view. We ought to be reluctant to say that in all circumstances and all scenarios we must never tolerate any interruptions or heckling, and everyone must always politely wait their turn to speak. There could be no counter-protesting to protestors if this were the rule.
But in the specific incident, it's not always clear when that point of "fair game to heckle" is passed. That's because it's a cultural norm and it's hard to get people to agree on norms, particularly in the moment and particularly when they disagree about the various parties' objectives which, as we agree, at least substantially lenses the way one evaluates how others use various tactics in various situation.
Thinking back to the law students, it's pretty likely that the Federalist Society invited that particular speaker for the purpose of provoking the exact response that they got. Which at least colors my evaluation of all parties involved, none of whom covered themselves with glory.
Is that a defense of a heckler's veto? No, because by definition a heckler's veto is an interruption of someone else's speech that violates the norm I'm referring to. But it is a nuance, because some kinds of interruptions and objections not only can but should be tolerated and incorporated into a culture of free speech.
"
That may be a case of the 150 "boycotters" identifying (or lucking into) a weak point upon which they can apply pressure very effectively because the decision-makers are timid but powerful.
We may approve or disapprove of their tactic, but I believe that our spot reaction(s) to picking a tactic like that will be substantially and even determinatively informed by our evaluation(s) of the objective.
In this case, I want to see the Chapelle show, therefore I disapprove of putting pressure on timid-but-powerful PR flacks.
But if it's, say, Chick-fil-A (prior corporate behavior iteration)? I disapprove of "pray the gay away" camps, therefore I'm in favor of putting pressure on timid-but-powerful PR flacks.
ETA: Am I arguing "the ends justify the means"? I could see someone thinking that. But among many means available to attempt to effect change, the means of "boycott" hasn't been demonstrated to be sufficently morally questionable as an inherent matter (the way other means like "violence" are) that we need worry about such a thing.
"
Then the point is made: the moral weight of a boycott is determined by its objective rather than its method.
"
An advertisement DOES support a show.
"
Respectfully, this appears incorrect. Jay's actual words:
What is the boycotter in “We’re going to call Dave Thomas and get him to stop advertising on All-American Muslim and get that show off the air!” trying to achieve? Explicitly: "get that show [AAM] off the air".
The other two objectives are "Get Slavemade Jeans out of the marketplace" and "Get Burt Likko kicked out of Kohl's."
"Get AAM off the air" looks a lot closer to "Get Slavemade Jeans out of the marketplace" than it does to "Kick Burt Likko out of Kohl's."
"
If "be cool with" roughly equals "nor morally disapprove of," then okay. Calling Dave is something you're not cool with but I am not willing to categorically condemn. Whether it was successful (AAM was taken off the air) or not (we can still get Double Baconators with cheese, blessings be unto the Pork Gods).
Now we can get to the issue of why calling Dave with that particular message is or is not cool.
I would condemn Calling Dave, but because I don't see any reason to object to airing AAM. AAM doesn't offend me and the only reason I can see to be offended by it is bigotry. I presume you agree that most of AAM's critics were bigots; that most of tge people who called Dave--and who urged a boycott of Wendy's when Dave said back, "fish off, we're sponsoringvthis show,"--were motivated by bigotry. We can and do all condemn bigotry. Certainly both you and I do.
To me, disapproving of the motive for an action (deontology) is a different reason to praise or condemn that action than a disapproval of the action itself (which would be, I suspect, rule utulitarianism), and both of those are different from the act-utilitarian analysis of "what impact would this a have on the world if it were successful?". So I guess what's going on with this discussion is motive versus anticipated results. And yes, these two can be confused with one another in certain (many?) contexts.
Still, it seems like we're moving as though drawn by moral gravity to the inexorable crux question of "What are you trying to achieve?" and the question of "How are you trying to achieve it?" is not so important if the two potential answers are "by a primary boycott" versus "by a secondary boycott."
"
But a boycott isn't legislation. This is consumer pressure we're talking about here. The government is not involved.
"
Experience tells me that there are certain juries for which things that are obvious are not so obvious, so I now close the circle when I can.
"
Sorry man, we can still be friends and all, but this answer dodges the question. Once again:
Either I've understood you correctly or I haven't. The question is answered with a "yes" or a "no."
Whether my objection to X is somehow objectively correct (or incorrect, or indeterminate) is irrelevant.
"
"...your jurisdiction..."
By this I take the meaning that I have power over my consumption choices, and you have power over your consumption choices, but I have no power over your consumption choices nor you over mine.
Restated: I might attempt to persuade you to not buy Slavemade Jeans, or watch All-American Muslim, or otherwise consume X-to-which-I-object. But if you insist on consuming X (jeans, TV shows, whatever) despite my objection, then I am obliged to accept your decision and take no further action.
Do I understand you correctly?
"
Is this because there is a legitimate good-faith dispute about whether "Love & Death" is morally objectionable?
"
Is the problem that we don't find any good reason to disapprove of All-American Muslim and therefore don't see a reason to have a primary boycott of the program, while we can easily find a good reason to disapprove of (admittedly hypothetical) Slavemade (tm) Jeans and therefore would approve of a primary boycott of such product?
If that is the case, then the issue is not one of primary versus secondary boycotts, but rather of the moral worth of the thing ultimately objected to?
If the issue is "You should take action to object to the thing that you actually object to, and not take action against other things because they aren't the thing you object to," that would be a principle I could understand (though not agree with).
"
Hypotheticals are useful to highlight what's going on in actual situations. In other words, they're analytical tools used when attempting to determine the contours of a principle that is purportedly at play. The principle ought to apply in both hypothetical and real-world cases, and indeed it may be easier to both illustrate and test the principle in a hypothetical construct.
If my hypothetical Kohl's secondary boycott is somehow morally bad, it should be morally bad for the same reason that people secondarily boycotting All-American Muslim's sponsors was morally bad.
If my hypothetical Kohl's secondary boycott is morally permissible, then it's difficult for me to understand why the secondary boycott of All-American Muslim's sponsors was morally bad.
Which is all to say, I don't think you've answered the question on the table: can you articulate why a primary boycott is morally permissible but a secondary boycott is not? Whether others agree with the principle is a different question. At this point, I don't even understand what that principle is.
"
There are merits and demerits to that argument which certainly can be debated, but it isn't the one Jay is making.
"
[Open parenthesis] [lowercase] tm [close parenthesis]
"
If I were to say, "Jay, you shouldn't buy Slavemade (tm) Jeans, because they are literally made by slaves," you're pretty clearly okay with that.
If I were to say, "Kohl's Department Stores, you shouldn't sell Slavemade (tm) Jeans, because they are literally made by slaves," you maybe do or maybe don't have a problem with that.
If I were to say, "Jay, you shouldn't shop at Kohl's because we asked them to stop selling Slavemade (tm) Jeans and they didn't," you are saying is out of bounds.
Truly, I don't see that there is a principle at issue here. Kohl's is helping sell Slavemade (tm) Jeans. They probably aren't going to notice if I go there and buy Sweatshop Wage (tm) Shirts but not Slavemade (tm) Jeans. But they plausibly might notice if I don't go there at all and try to figure out why, especially if a bunch of my friends join me in refusing to buy from Kohl's. And isn't Kohl's itself doing something plausibly wrong by selling Slavemade (tm) Jeans?
On “TSN Open Mic for the week of 4/10/2023”
Creepy and weird.
On “Do the Right Thing (Public Officials Behaving Badly)”
The complexity of how secondary boycotts are regulated and when they are and aren't prohibited is impressive even for an already-confusing area of law. It's no wonder that it's a bit confusing and difficult for everyone to explain and understand reasons for a consumer-level analogue to either justify or condemn them.
For myself, I do not see any principled reason why one ought not engage in a secondary consumer boycott. The only reason I see to legally prohibit secondary labor boycotts is an arbitrary policy decision to limit the economic damage done by striking. Not sure I see the same sort of thing applying in the consumer arena, and I don't see a moral objection to the practice at all.
Basically the secondary boycotter says to the sponsor of the other entity engaged in a questioned activity, "You aren't doing the wrong thing directly, but you are economically supporting someone who is doing the bad thing. That means you approve of the bad thing enough that you're willing to pay money to support it, so we aren't going to support you until you stop supporting the people who do the bad thing."
Maybe it's effective maybe it isn't, but I don't see a moral objection to this. (My mind might be changed.)
On “Don’t Free Daniel Perry”
Texas is a "Constitutional Carry" state. All you need to carry a weapon out in public is a holster, unless you're a felon or have a violent misdemeanor within the past five years.
...if you're white, that is.
"
It is angering to see this going on, because it betrays even the pretense of equality before the law. Perry demonstrates no remorse for his actions. His actions harmed society, not just by the taking of a life (as if that weren't bad enough!) but by demonstrating to people already suspicious of the justice system that they were right to not put their trust in it, that they were right to suspect that people like Perry get treated better than they do.
Consider the way that the justice system treats a person accused of similar crimes who. Is not the beneficiary of a campaign on the part of media figures.
First of all, such a person is more likely than not to be a person of color. Secondly, that person is unlikely to receive such gentle treatment from the police at the crime scene. These first and second facts are not unrelated. I'd love to say that the differential caused by race ends at that point,. But I hope everybody reading this comment knows better.
Once in custody, a person like this will be in processed in lengthy and undignified manner by a reception level jail. In a lot of jurisdictions this involves a strip search which includes a squat so that authorities may be more confident than contraband is not being smuggled into the facility. Conditions within the reception facility very significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, some of which are more racialized than others, but all of which involve a variety of dehumanizing procedures that are effectively intended to indoctrinate the new admittee into a posture of mental inferiority to the uniformed guards.
There is always a delay between admission to the reception facility and an arraignment. Many states have laws requiring an assignment to an attorney at the earliest possible time, but this rarely happens. Because of funding shortages and other systemic problems, many jurisdictions will see people go six months or more before they are assigned a lawyer. Some jurisdictions do not have laws requiring assignment of a lawyer until arraignment occurs. These jurisdictions tend to have longer times between arrest and assignment to an attorney.
Once an attorney is assigned,. The person in the system will find that there are one of hundreds of clients that attorney is tasked to handle. Unsurprisingly, the attorney will typically review that client's file and prepare a strategy. Only very briefly, and only on the day when some other event is occurring the strategy that the attorney picks will typically follow a cookie cutter pattern, but that may be kinda-sorta OK because prosecutors are also overworked, and they too are following cookie cutter patterns.
To be bailed out of jail while all of this is going that typically requires the payment of a significant amount of money to a bail bondsman. Some jurisdictions have abolished bail, to the great displeasure of law and order advocates within the community. It's hard for me to see how jurisdictions can afford to keep people in jail, sometimes for as much as a year, before conviction at public expense. Granted, jail is cheaper than prison, because it doesn't have to elaborately equipped. Jail is intended to be a short term housing facility for people. In custody, where prison is intended to be more or less permanent housing. The result, of course, is that conditions and jails are significantly less humane than conditions and prisons, and if you think conditions and prisons are humane, you are not paying attention.
All of this is before trial. Bear in mind that we are talking about how the state is treating someone who is, at the time, presumed innocent. Well, ostensibly presumed innocent. They aren't getting very much information about the progress of their case. , and that's because the case is not really progressing at all. In theory, the person could insist on their speedy trial rights, but in practice, their attorneys waive those rights so that administrative processing of the court's docket as a whole can proceed in something that passes for an orderly fashion. The system places immense pressure upon the attorneys to make those waivers, and it is far from clear to me at least that the people involved in the system. Even understand what their rights are much less than they're being asked to waive those rights for the benefit of people other than themselves.
This is a significant part of the background of the pressure that participants in the system, both on the prosecution side and on the defense side, feel to make plea bargains. But let's accused person understands at least that much, and insists that they are innocent and demands a trial they might have to have a bit of an argument with their own attorney about that but it is something that a number of defendants seem able to do. So the case goes to trial, and the trial is typically conducted out of evidence folders because very little investigation has been done beyand what initially happened in the day or so after the arrest. People have different opinions about the caliber of public defenders,. But I have seen little evidence to believe that public defenders are any less skilled or less able to present competent defenses, even under these circumstances, then private counsel. So let's assume a good trial experience. , one more a plausible defense is offered,. But there is nevertheless a conviction..
No. The convict is no longer presumed innocent, and will be sentenced within a period of a few weeks of the conviction. If the result of the sntencing is additional time in custody, they will be transferred to a prison. At this point, they may be appointed or may otherwise obtain the services of an appellate attorney to examine the trial for legal errors and present an appeal. Once there appeals process is exhausted. And if the exhaustion of the appeals process results continued incarceration, they have the option of presenting a habeus corpus claim. Under most circumstances, only one habeas corpus claim (and its appurtenant appeals) may challenge the conviction. Meanwhile of course they are living in prison which might be better than jail but is not exactly the kind of existence one would choose for oneself under most circumstances. Let's be clear: prison would be an awful life.
In most cases, executive clemency will not be considered until all of these legal processes are exhausted. If what I'm describing above sounds like it could take years and years, it can. And while those are still theoretically viable procedures, there is very little political incentive for a governor of a state, or the president if it's a federal crime, to consider the granting of clemency. Far easier for the executive to say that the judicial process is not yet exhausted and the system should be given a chance to work on its own merits. So for a significant number of convicts, their terms will expire before their procedural options do.
Mr. Perry appears to have been treated with kid gloves by the police all along. He does not appear to have spent any time in custody at all until after his conviction. This despite the facts and circumstances of his case appearing to indicate guilt from a very early stage he just picked the right victim, such that actors within the system treated him very very well indeed.
He is a convicted and unapologetic murderer, and the system shpuld treat him the way it treats other people similarly-described, before the governor succumbs to pressure from preening perfumed princes of political propaganda purveyors to perpetuate Perry's protracted privileges.
On “Do the Right Thing (Public Officials Behaving Badly)”
It would only require people to buy Bud Light. They don't have to actually drink the stuff. I have house plants too.