I was going to provide another response to Shawn K. Quinn, but after
   reading your own, I can see that he's been beaten quite effectively.
              Jim Bell
     __________________________________________________________________

   From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
   To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
   Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 12:19 AM
   Subject: Re: USA Universities learn the consequences of disrespecting
   free speech
   On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:35:52AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
   > On 12/04/2016 10:20 PM, jim bell wrote:
   > > *From:* Shawn K. Quinn <[1]skquinn@rushpost.com>
   > >> Kellogg's wanted to retain their customers. Their customers didn't
   > >> want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising.
   > >
   > > You are writing this as if there is only one kind of Kelloggs
   > > customer, and that customer "Their customers didn't want  the
   company
   > > supporting Breitbart with advertising. " Well, I'm a Kelloggs
   > > customer, and while before I heard this I didn't care whether
   > > Kelloggs advertised on Breitbart, now I do.  I find it amazingly
   > > biased and PC that Kelloggs would refuse to advertise for an
   > > obviously bogus reason, one that it clearly won't apply to
   > > advertising on other media organizations, or marketing in other
   > > nations around the world.
   >
   > Companies decide that an advertising contract no longer suits their
   > business needs, whatever those needs may be, all the time. Often they
   > don't write a press release about it and explain their choices, but
   > apparently
   "apparently" eh?
   > in this case Kellogg's got enough complaints that they felt
   "felt" eh?
   > this was necessary.
   >
   > Again, purchases of advertising in the past do not in any way create
   an
   > obligation for purchases of advertising in the future.
   Again missing the point, and the difference with the examples you
   brought up (such as BMW) and your claim that they are the same, and
   your final claim that Kellogg is not being political in the way they
   executed their 'hit' on Breitbart.
   > > At this point, I am inclined to join the anti-Kelloggs boycott.  I
   > > access the Breitbart website an average of once a year or so, but I
   > > find such lame and unjustified attempts to obstruct freedom of
   speech
   > > to be detestable.
   >
   > "Free speech" refers to freedom, not price. You can say what you
   like,
   "but you may experience consequences" such as when a company decides to
   get really political by being particularly public about a 'target' of
   their 'non advertising'.
   > but don't expect an advertiser to fund it for you if it is hate
   speech,
   Oh so Breitbart publishes hate speech hey?
   I'm assuming it must be "easy" for you to provide a couple examples...
   > conflicts with their company values,
   ... or the "company values" held by Kellogg which conflict with which
   specific articles over at Breitbart, for a random example.
   > or their customers' values. You are
   > welcome to do what you like, of course; personally I'm inclined to
   > celebrate the willingness of Kellogg's to take a stand with a bowl of
   > Frosted Flakes (or maybe Frosted Mini-Wheats, I haven't decided yet).
   Take a baseless stand in support of a fascist pillaging, opportunistic
   corporation with a PR department evidently under the control of extreme
   Lefty morons.
   Of course that's what you'd do Shawne when you have ZERO facts to
   support your position. You keep repeating your moronicity over and over
   again.
   "Trigger a retard today: point out his total lack of facts."
   Anon.
   --
       Certified  Deplorable  Fake  News  Nazi (TM)(C)(R)
       Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning
   Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488

References

   1. mailto:skquinn@rushpost.com