An April 7 letter writer extolled the virtues of free markets and free speech and then outlined a boycott to destroy both, justifying her actions with the claim that only the government can censor free speech.
The problem with the progressive left's use of organized punitive boycotts against things/people they politically disagree with is always the unintended consequences and the harm that these boycotts cause to innocents caught in the political crossfire. Whether a boycott of a gas station to punish big oil or a boycott to punish a KAOI for the shows it airs or sponsors for the ads they run during someone's show, boycotts don't affect/punish the intended target. But they do punish the unrelated, small businesses that thrive because of the targets' business.
For example, when you boycott a gas station, you are only hurting the independent owner of the gas station. It is their business and does not affect big oil. If you boycott a radio station because of its programming or a private company for the ads they run on a show, you only hurt the station, the ad companies and their employees by disrupting their business, reducing their profits and/or costing employees jobs.
The letter writer's assertion that the Tea Party lost credibility because members defended Rush Limbaugh's right to free speech is ludicrous. Shouldn't we all support all free speech? Selective free speech is censorship. I even support that misogynist Bill Maher's right to free speech.
Terese Churchill
Hana
