USA Universities learn the consequences of disrespecting free speech

[Razer]

On 12/04/2016 11:35 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

> 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 in this case Kellogg's got enough complaints that they felt
> this was necessary.

DUDE You're arguing for the FREE Market system.

Despite their lips moving making sounds that they are the most ardent
supporters of Fre Markets, Most of the Libertarians I've met or read
only believe in Free Markets when it's 'free' the way THEY want it to be
free.

Kelloggs, a multinational corporation that OWNS MARKETS could give no
shits about a pissant little blog like Breitbart. One of their ad people
probably thought it might be a good way to pick up a few more customers
who'd buy healthyflakes at the local Prepper supply house, but it became
a liability... It's history.

Rr


> On 12/04/2016 10:20 PM, jim bell wrote:
>> *From:* Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at 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 in this case Kellogg's got enough complaints that they felt
> 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.
>
>> 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 don't expect an advertiser to fund it for you if it is hate speech,
> conflicts with their company values, 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).
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 3841 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20161205/09925f0f/attachment.txt>