# Boycotting artists is wrong; unless it's my cause **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 16, 2006, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717 "2006-02-16T00:06:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2006, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717/1 "2006-02-16T00:06:25Z")
Following a current thread in Cafe Society, the subject is boycotting artists. Boycotting artists because of their political statements is censorship, it’s trying to shut down debate, it’s an attempt at conformity or else pay the price. Unless, of course, we’re boycotting. . . er, protesting . . . something I disagree with. Well, there’s a qualitative difference there. That’s not censorship, it’s not trying to shut down debate, it’s not trying to make the artists comform or pay the price. It’s exercising my right to protest. It’s only what any righteous person would do. It’s what we ought to be doing. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2006, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717/2 "2006-02-16T00:52:21Z")
Is this supposed to be a serious subject of debate? Is it some sort of rant? Who are you talking to? I say if you don’t like an artist, don’t buy their shit. Is there anyone who would say otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2006, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717/3 "2006-02-16T00:54:43Z")
Is this in relation to the Willie Nelson thread? ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2006, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717/4 "2006-02-16T01:11:05Z")
I’m pretty sure it is and I stopped myself from pointing out that Ted Nugent is never heard complaining about all the radio stations that won’t play him. Because there aren’t any (or at least too few to take seriously). If it’s AOR, you’ll hear “Cat Scratch Fever.” If it’s oldies, you’ll hear “Baby Please Don’t Go” (Unless the station sucks, but that’s another matter). It’s not about not buying cds by artists you don’t like. It’s about insisting that their own fans be unable to hear them by getting them off the airwaves. That, of course assumes that this is being done by grassroots groups, and not by the owner of the radio stations. By the way, I hate Ted Nugent. I love some of his music. If you like the music, buy the CD. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2006, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717/5 "2006-02-16T19:58:23Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Boycotting artists because of their political statements is censorship, it’s trying to shut down debate, it’s an attempt at conformity or else pay the price. No, it’s not. No, it’s not. No, it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717/6 "2006-02-17T14:12:09Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Following a current thread in Cafe Society, the subject is boycotting artists. Boycotting artists because of their political statements is censorship, it’s trying to shut down debate, it’s an attempt at conformity or else pay the price. > > Unless, of course, we’re boycotting. . . er, protesting . . . something I disagree with. Well, there’s a qualitative difference there. That’s not censorship, it’s not trying to shut down debate, it’s not trying to make the artists comform or pay the price. It’s exercising my right to protest. It’s only what any righteous person would do. It’s what we ought to be doing. Who has ever told you that you have an obligation to buy ANY artist’s work? Now, if you were to organize a boycott based on reasons that some people find absurd (like, say, the fundamentalist churches that have tried to organize boycotts of Disney), you’ll undoubtedly be subjected to ridicule. But NOBODY is going to argue that you HAVE to go to Disney movies. We have every right to buy or not buy as we see fit. Even people who agreed with the Dixie Chicks’ anti-war statements have never tried to argue that conservative fans have no right to shun them. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717/7 "2006-02-17T16:47:21Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > But NOBODY is going to argue that you HAVE to go to Disney movies. Well, unless Proposition 304 passes, and we all pray it will. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717/8 "2006-02-17T17:25:43Z")
Boycotting is censorship? I think not. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717/9 "2006-02-17T20:31:40Z")
Well, remember there’s a vast difference between a boycott and censorship. Which is a dichotomy that a lot of people on both sides of the issue seem to forget. A boycott is simply refusing to patronize something or someone for some reason. It may have the effect of putting a company out of business or modifying someone’s actions, or it may not. It’s also organized on a consensual basis, so in effect the people involved in the boycott are choosing, for reasons that seem good to them to support it. Censorship is where an authority removes the chance to patronize something from the population at large. Now, there are times where a boycott can lead to _de facto_ censorship. If, say, all the Harry Potter haters out there got it off the bookstore shelves (or the Wal\*Mart shelves) because it was no longer bringing in money for the marketer the boycott would have the effect of removing the choice from everyone else, too. But I don’t see the two causes as being equal, even if their result is the same. I’m probably putting this poorly, but I don’t think the two actions are identical. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, unless Proposition 304 passes, and we all pray it will. Can I get a reference to this? The Dope search just edited out the 304 when I had it look for “proposition 304” and gave me a huge list of returns that seemed to have nothing to do with this topic. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717/10 "2006-02-17T21:26:08Z")
Kent Brockman: Homer Simpson is guilty. Of course, this is just a television poll which is not legally binding, unless proposition 304 passes, and we all pray it will. Homer versus the 18th Amendment. The bootlegging show with the G-Man. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717/11 "2006-02-17T23:54:16Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Kent Brockman: Homer Simpson is guilty. Of course, this is just a television poll which is not legally binding, unless proposition 304 passes, and we all pray it will. > > Homer versus the 18th Amendment. The bootlegging show with the G-Man. Actually, it was “Homer Bad Man” (2F06), and Homer was in the news because a babysitter thought he’d groped her, when in fact he was just grabbing a gummy Venus de Milo that had stuck to her pants. Kent: This is hour 57 of our live, round-the-clock coverage outside the Simpson estate. Remember, by the way, to tune in at 8:00 for highlights of today’s vigil, including when the garbage man came and when Marge Simpson put the cat out…possibly because it was harassed, we don’t know. Of course, there’s no way to see into the Simpson home without some kind of infrared heat-sensitive camera. So, let’s turn it on. [screen shows blue house, orange Simpsons watching TV] Now, this technology is new to me, but…I’m pretty sure that’s Homer Simpson in the oven, rotating slowly. [closeup of turkey] His body temperature has risen to over 400 degrees – he’s literally stewing in his own juices. [in the studio] Now, here are some results from our phone-in poll: 95% of the people believe Homer Simpson is guilty. Of course, this is just a television poll which is not legally binding, unless proposition 304 passes. And we all pray it will. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717/12 "2006-02-18T03:45:15Z")
My bad. Wonder why I remembered it from… eh. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boycotting-artists-is-wrong-unless-its-my-cause/344717/13 "2006-02-18T07:19:59Z")
I think organizing a huge movement to use “grass roots” boycotts to force conformity is dirty pool, but I also think it’s protected speech and fully within the letter and spirit of Constitutional rights. It dismays me when the Christian right minority successfully pressures a network into removing controversial programming, for example, but I would hope the “proper” response would be to continue the debate in a public manner, not to find a way to prevent such protests. Here’s what happens a lot, even around here. Someone says something that others don’t like. Those others protest loudly. Supporters of the first guy join the fray and respond negatively to the protestations. That first protestor then crosses a line by going, “Hey, you can’t shut me up! Free speech!” As if, THEY had a right to protest the first speaker, but no one ELSE has any right to protest THEIR speech! In effect, they’re attempting to use the First Amendment as an excuse to PREVENT free speech. That’s not how it works. If you exercise your right to free speech, you have to be prepared for the fact that other people might just respond to your speech with speech of their own. The OP appears to have lost sight of this.