Profit and Loss in the Marketplace of Ideas
When Dr. Laura Schlessinger made comments that many claimed denigrated and disrespected homosexuals, offended individuals quickly boycotted the show and its advertisers.
When Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines made comments that many claimed denigrated and disrespected President George W. Bush, offended individuals quickly boycotted the band, its albums and its concerts.
These and other boycotts just as quickly spawned a backlash of their own. By threatening media figures with a loss of income, boycotters attempt to stifle the expression of certain unpopular ideas, and thus deprive these figures of their right to free speech. Author Peter David, for example, has repeatedly criticized such efforts on his blog, including one entry where he writes: “I’m talking about pure, simple, appropriate, proportional response. If you disagree with someone, say it with words, because saying it with punitive, retaliatory measures proves nothing except that you are petty and intolerant.”
I applaud the sentiment behind David’s position, but as I have thought about it, I can’t help but feel he’s not quite on the right track here. In certain situations in a market-based economy, boycotts and economic pressure are a wholly legitimate method of political and social discourse.
“The marketplace of ideas” is an expression that one often hears to describe the give and take of discourse; if people hear an idea, say “I’m not buying it,” and thus ignore it, it tends to go away, but if it is popular – if people do buy it – then people will continue to express and share the idea, or at least have to engage it when taking their own positions. Usually the marketplace is perceived as merely metaphorical. But there is an actual commercial marketplace of ideas, where they are bought and sold for the profit of those who have and express the ideas, and for those who would help these creators reach an audience. Once that commercial element comes into play, the entire dynamics of free speech and expression change.
Schlessinger made her comments as part of her radio and television programs – programs which are broadcast over radio and television frequencies that are considered to be a public trust, no less. She wants to draw income from the production and dissemination of those ideas, just as any manufacturer wants to draw income from the production and distribution of its goods. But if those goods, or the methods of their production, are considered harmful, it is perfectly legitimate to call attention to that harm and urge people not to allow the manufacturer to profit from them. This is the logic behind “Buy American” campaigns and boycotts of fast food restaurants based on their effect on the meat packing industry. Why shouldn’t it apply to commercially-produced ideas and expressions as well? If creators want the protection and privileges that the notion of “intellectual property” provides them, they need to accept the drawbacks as well.
The Dixie Chicks may not appear to be in the same boat as Schlessinger; there is little overt political content on their albums, although “Goodbye Earl” raised a hackle or three. But Maines made her comments as part of a concert performance, an expression for which she charged admission and expected to draw income. By bringing political content into that expression, she made herself and her band fair game, just as R.E.M. has through songs like “Ignoreland” and Toby Keith has with his patriotic anthems. One thing worth considering is that Maines’ comment was a throwaway line, unlike many of these other artists, so some element of proportionality should come into play. If Maines keeps the political comments out of her concert banter in the near future, I’d feel much different towards people who would aim to continue boycotts. And if radio stations are getting requests for the band and choose not to play them, I hope those listeners will be at least a little bit motivated to take their listening elsewhere.
Of course, it’s not always the case that an artist makes an overtly political or ideological statement, and sometimes there are attempts to curtail an artist’s expression anyway. Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon were disinvited to an event at the Baseball Hall of Fame celebrating the anniversary of the movie Bull Durham because they had, in other interviews and appearances, expressed their opposition to the current President Bush’s Iraq policy. There was no political discussion scheduled for the Hall of Fame event, Robbins and Sarandon had made perfectly clear that they would refrain from any political commentary that would distract from the attention on the movie and the Hall of Fame, and I don’t even know for sure if they were to receive much (if anything) in the way of an appearance fee from the event. Robbins and Sarandon were making no direct attempt to profit from any expression of their political position, so there was no grounds for any kind of boycott or cancellation of their appearance. The line that Schlessinger hurdled and Maines tiptoed across, Robbins and Sarandon went nowhere near.
In a similar vein, some abortion rights advocates have urged boycotts of Domino’s Pizza, because the owner of the chain contributes to pro-life organizations such as Operation Rescue. If Domino’s pizza carriers were delivering pro-life literature with your pepperoni pie, I’d see the point. And I understand that people with deep convictions could hate the thought that their purchases could indirectly become the source of a contribution to a cause they detest. But “indirectly” is an important word here, and there is no way to ensure your dollar stays ideologically pure from the moment it leaves your hand until the Federal Reserve finally shreds it. I don’t bear moral responsibility for what everyone who profits from my purchase does with that profit, and I don’t have the moral right to try and dictate it either. The guy at the supermarket checkout counter might give part of his paycheck to causes I oppose, but that doesn’t mean I can deprive him of his living. Trying to control an individual’s private actions by threatening to withhold income is dangerously close to situations like the McCarthy-era blacklist, and that is the kind of “punitive, retaliatory measure” that David rails against.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.