Why would this have been inappropriate? What difference is their between pushing for corporate responsibility at the sponsorship level, and pushing for corporate responsibility at the network level? Surely the networks are more responsible for the show than the sponsors.
To use your pollution analogy, would you support a boycott of people who buy products from polluters while refusing to boycott the polluters themselves?
Who on Earth said Dr. Laura should be guaranteed a TV show? As a gay man, I despise Dr. Laura and the broom she rode in on, and I would love to see her show canceled because the market spoke, not because of her views.
I would love to see her show laughed off the air, but GLAAD’s attempt to exert prior restraint and keep DR. Lauara from exercising her trade because of her views is repugnant to me and any other freedom-loving American. Free speech is meaningless if we only tolerate speech we approve of. We have to defend the right of crackpots, too.
Because I disapprove of the Christians trying to ban shows that present ideas that offend them, it would be hypocritical to want to ban Dr. Laura because her views offend me.
Should say “a boycott of companies who buy products from polluters…”
As a writer in the Philadelphia Inquirer put it, don’t get yourselves too knotted up - she won’t last long, based on what’s come out so far.
And good riddance. I know I support boycotting the sponsors of her show. If she’d called Asians or blacks or women or Christians or Jews “biological errors” she’d have lost her TV show and her radio timeslot, but because she says it about the gay community - nothing. Pitiful.
Esprix
So far, as I’ve flipped past the show, all I saw were sad crying kids who missed parents who were divorced or something of that nature…
I don’t see how that analogy works at all. When someone dumps toxic waste into the drinking water, I may end up drinking it without knowing it, without having a choice. When someone is expressing their beliefs, I have the right to choose whether I want to listen to them and whether I agree with them. Simply listening does not “poison” my mind.
I also don’t see how boycotting the network would be any different than boycotting the sponsors. The network is, in effect, a sponsor of the show. If I understand it correctly, they pay to be able to have the show carried on their network. Although I would presume that the network would have a statement along the lines that “Dr. Laura’s views are not necessarily the views of XXXX.”, the corporations that sponsor the show would have a similar viewpoint. By your own arguements, then, this would be inappropriate.
I don’t think anybody thinks that everyone has the right to their own TV show. However, the attempt to shut down one person’s avenue to his/her speech is, in effect, the same as trying to shut down their speech.
While this is not legally wrong, I do think it is hypocritical and might even go out on a limb and say it’s morally wrong.
By this, I mean the boycotting of corporate sponsorship. Sorry about any confusion. 
I might get in trouble for this but what the hell. I support the notion that homosexuals should have every right that heterosexuals have. That includes things like being able to marry, equal protection of their rights, and anything else I enjoy. If homosexuality is something that people are born with then I’d consider it a biological error. Just like low sperm count.
Marc
You’re trying to look at what she said from a sociological point of view, or even from a biological/reproductive point of view - “Dr.” Laura is incapable of that. She was espousing “biologial error” as a moral judgment, not an observation of nature’s behavior.
In addition, “error” is, well, an error. If we regard the word “normal” as “being in the majority” (i.e., being born with one head is normal and being born with two is abnormal) then, from a purely scientific standpoint, homosexuality could be considered abnormal because it is “not of the norm.” (“Aberration,” again from the same sociological/biological/scientific point of view applies as well.) But, again, she wasn’t making a scientific observation, she was saying homosexuality is wrong, period. So, for obviously reasons, I’m all for boycotting her and hope she tanks.
Esprix
The thing I find troubling about this episode has been the attitude that a certain group doesn’t like Dr. Laura and said group is out to make sure Dr. Laura is punished for holding views they disagree with. It would have been more honest to say “We don’t like Dr. Laura and her views so we are going to create our own show that educates people on what we believe and let the consumer decide for themself.” What we then have are two competing viewpoints which can stand on their own merits.
The other troubling thing I’ve found is the amount of misinformation spread about what she actually said. She did not say homosexual people are biological errors but that homosexual preferences may be biological errors. Defining errors as conditions that fall outside the norm is not a bad thing. If heterosexuality is the norm, then homosexuality most definitely falls outside that norm. That’s not to say it’s bad or immoral or anything else. It also doesn’t excuse any discrimination that the homosexual community faces. I personally feel the gay community could find other battles to fight that would be more productive.
That is absolutely false. There is a world of difference between abnormality and error. Being abnormal is just that: being an individual or a member of a group which does not participate in some perceived normalcy.
Error, on the other hand, implies a teleology. If the purpose of the human race is to conform to some perceived standards of normalcy, then you might be correct. But you are going to have one hell of a time convincing most people to swallow this metaphysical load. Do abnormal people not fulfill the purposes of their existence? The answer to this is not axiomatic.
Furthermore, to ancitipate a tired old argument, the purpose of the human race may be to perpetuate its existence. This does not mean that everyone needs to reproduce in excess, for that might even engineer our own destruction. So I don’t want to hear any tripe about homosexuals not fulfilling humanity’s racial purpose by not breeding in a *normal[\i] fashion.
MR
One thing you’re forgetting, wiz, is that Schlessinger puts herself out there as an authority, which she ain’t. She’s a moralistic preacher who clouds her issues with vague scientific mumbo-jumbo and holds a Ph.D. in, what, physical therapy or some nonsense like that?
Whatever. I do agree that the community would be better served focusing on something a little more pressing, but I fully support their right to protest her. As I said before, methinks she’ll be gone before the season’s over anyway, and the world won’t miss her much for her absence.
And I might point out how many Christian groups boycott and protest shows they don’t like and attempt to remove them from the air, with mixed results - in the end, ratings determine who stays and who goes.
Esprix
This is simple, really. There is little logical difference or moral difference between the two. However, this is hardly the point. We tried to avoid even the appearance of curtailing freedom of speech. Even though protesting against the networks in no way infringes on Dr. Laura’s first amendment rights, it certainly would have been perceived that way. Hence it would have been inappropriate.
IzzyR and Skott have been rather hung up on my example of pollution. So you have demonstrated that Dr. Laura is not chemical waste. Congratulations. It was illustrative, not analogous. The point was to show how corporations ought to take responsibility for what they promote. I drew the parallel too tightly, for which you have rightly called me out. I don’t mean to dodge the issue, but this matter is hardly the point.
I’m sorry, but I think this is impossible to substantiate. The government (state or federal) has had nothing to do with this whatsoever. No one’s avenues have been blocked. If Paramount decides to reject my video clip for the talk show I am working on, are my avenues to free speech blocked? Oh, certainly not. So when the network objects to what I have to say, they have a right to shitcan me. But when other individuals, exercising their free speech, urge corporations to be aware of exactly what they are rubberstamping, this violates freedom of speech?
And I’d go out on a limb and say that you are absolutely off base, both in your opinion and in your understanding of freedom of speech.
MR
Reproduction is indeed one of our major functions as an organism. YOu might alsoi throw in things like eating, communicating… etc. IF a person is unable to say, eat solid foods, or is born unable to communicate, we would say that that person is abnormal. I don’t think that this is necesarily a bad thing at all.
Homosexuality does not meet the norm. If it did, I doubt there would be much of a race. But that is not to say that it is wrong. A deaf person is no less of a person. A person who is unable to reproduce is no less of a person. A gay person is no less of a person.
I think you can say that homosexuality is not the norm without disparaging homosexuals. Dr.Laura’s problem is that she say sit is immoral. Well, according to her version, she is correct. Fortunately, most do not subscribe to her version of morality.
Now if it was the Howard Stearn and Dr.Laura show, I would watch.
Not a bad premise…how would it work? Women come on the show, take off their clothes in front of Howard, and get told to leave their lives of sin and stay in the kitchen by Dr. Laura?
Or maybe Howard abd Dr. Laura just duke it out, with mostly naked women dancing in the background…
MR
I don’t get these assertions that boycotting Dr. Laura’s sponsors is immoral. Anyone can say anything they want. Nobody has to support their ability to do so.
Here is what the boycotters are saying to the potential sponsors: “I spend my money on your products. I do not want my money going to support hate speech. If you support hate speech, I will spend my money elsewhere.” What the hell is wrong with that?
To make it clear, a simple analogy. Every day, I go to the same bodega for the paper and a cup of coffee. If the bodega owner, exercising her right to free speech, placed a photo of Hitler in the storefront window, am I morally obliged to continue to frequent her store? Of course not.
After I stop buying things from the bodega, am I committing a morally wrong act to tell my roommates and neighbors that the bodega owner is an apparent Nazi, and they should buy things from her any more? Hell no!
The “free” in free speech means that you can’t be stopped by the government from saying things. It doesn’t mean “free” as in no consequences. When Bert Campaneris, Jimmy the Greek, and Marge Schott made their racist comments about black athletes, they sure as hell were allowed to say those things. But sure as hell, the people who employed them/were partnered with them had the right to say, “we don’t want to be associated with you any more. Clean out your desk and leave.” Similarly, the boycotters were telling the sponsors that, if they supported a woman, who had been spewing homophobic hate speech for years, in her attempt to spread that hate speech to a larger audience, their would be economic consequences. Good for them.
Sua
Change “they should buy things” to "they should not buy things.
Change “their would be economic consequences” to “there would be economic consequences”
Nothing else to see here, folks. Go about your business.
Sua
SuaSponte:
You’ve got your "Camp"s mixed up. I think the guy you’re referring to is Jim Campanis, former Dodgers Gemeral Manager, rather than Bert Campaneris, the former Athletics player who played all nine position in a game.
Actually the guy’s name was Al Campanis.
Right you are, Izzy. Lord, I’ve got to proofread better… :o
Chaim Mattis Keller