Disappoint Mints and Free Speech

Don't you know by now it's only free speech when the politician agrees with the content.

 

^ Well, he may ask whatever he likes. It only becomes an abuse of power if he forces them to do it.

Hmm, since it is a publicly funded university, they may have some restrictions on what could be interpreted as political material. Then again, it was in a bookstore, and produced by a third party. I think the guy was just too thin-skinned.

 

What stupidity. The mints have been there for a long time, if I read the article correctly, lampooning all sorts of people before Obama even took office. It's ridiculous and is without a doubt an infringement on free speech -- that "it's not a book" argument is utter BS.

Of course, I also see something else -- these heroes for "respecting the President" were strangely silent when such things were lampooning Bush and Republicans, but now that Saint Barack Obama is being mocked, NOW it's inappropriate. What a double standard! It's not the only double standard you'll see in politics -- everyone does it -- but it's disgraceful no matter who is doing it.

 

It is an infringement of free speech because people who are considered public figures - and who can be more public that the President - are pretty much allowed to be mocked as much as you like. It's not illegal to make fun of the President - political satire and lampooning is almost as old as politics itself. I cannot recall a president in my life that has NOT been mocked, insulted, and been made fun of publicly. It's no worse that what you'll see on half a dozen bumper stickers on your drive home from work.

I recall about two years ago there was a political cartoon comparing Obama to a monkey. That was in FAR worse taste and MUCH more offensive than this, and even THAT was considered free speech.

 

Do you not remember the war we had about that very cartoon? The Alleys ran red with blood!

 

It is a ridiculous case, but there is no infringement on free speech in what the article states. Here is what happened as I see it:

- Some student finds the mints offensive. That's his (her?) opinion, and right. S/he calls the state rep about it to complain. Again his/her right.

- Joe Armstrong decides to check it out, and tells the manager he, too finds the mints offensive. We don't know just what he said, but it is his opinion, he can express it.

- The store director takes down the mints. I don't know the innermost workings of his mind and his reasons for doing so, but hey, he's the boss, he can decide what he will sell or not. The article title said the university was "forced" but there's no mention of forcing anywhere - it's written just that said the manager agreed, and took them down "without question."

As far as I can tell, no action was taken against the store, nor any threat was used to imply that it might be. All involved expressed expressed their opinions on the topic - not being allowed to do that would be an offense on free speech. Yes, I do not agree that these mints were a "defamation" or particularly offensive, perhaps no one here agrees, but random guy/girl X is allowed to say otherwise.

Now, one professor in the university was quoted saying that a statement "has more heft when it's coming from a government official.' That is a subjective matter - perhaps some people might be intimidated by an authority figure, but there is no legal authority coming from the representative in this case. Does expresing his views constitute non-allowed intimidation? That was his personal opinion he is just as allowed to say it as the store owner is allowed to agree - or disagree. Will the Rep commit a government intervention into a private business by complaining to the waiter in a restaurant that his soup is cold?

 

The Senator's comments about it being a "state funded" institution struck me as threatening. The fact he thinks that getting the mints removed is somehow different than a having a book critical of Obama removed is deeply disturbing to me. It's fishy as hell.

 

@ Blackthorne, LKD:

Spoiler

some of the statements that he made were made later to the press when they asked him about it. We don't know just what he said to the store manager; I checked other sites and there is nothing mentioned of the talk except that Armstrong found them "offensive", (the closest I got from several articles was this). Public figure or no, he is within his rights to say he disagrees with something and why. I can't find any proof of him acting less than civil in that exchange. Now, I find his reasoning wrong, but that doesn't mean he isn't allowed to say it? He has a freedom of expression, too, unless they have to sign something to that effect when they get elected.

Now to the press, he explained his motivation for doing so, hence went into more detail. I find this explanation laughable, but it has no relation to whether he tried to "pull his weight" against the store manager. Even if he did, and that's an "if" - customers routinely do that when unhappy. Who here has worked with customers in any relation and hasn't heard something like "Do you know who I am?" or otherwise protesting what are to us laughable issues. That might make them douchebags, but it doesn't necessarily make them criminals. If you choose to give in and kowtow, that's your choice.

Now, Armstrong has done a fine job of making himself look like an idiot, but let's look at it from the other direction. If we say as a state representative he was wrong in saying he was offended, that certainly is a violation against freedom of speech - his. He's just as entitled to make personal comments as the next man. It strikes me as absurd, really: in the name of free speech, we restrict his. It is like saying that public people shouldn't give speeches, because their status might prevent those disagreeing from speaking out. Frankly, that's absurd.

In protesting the laughable thin-skinnedness of others, I think we should be wary so we don't become too thin-skinned ourselves. Otherwise, we make fine targets for derision ourselves.

tl/dr: Armstrong may be an idiot, but if the manager wet his pants at seeing a politician, that's his problem. The idea that Armstrong complaining is an assault on free speech strikes me as going a bit too far. It's not exactly a great victory for free speech if we must muzzle all public figures so they can't intimidate us into agreeing.

Naturally, Armstrong's "donkey in a china shop" approach has accomplished one thing - advertise the Disappoint-mints, as per The Christian Post

Before the mints’ removal, Kent said they were not particularly popular. He said the store generally sold about two 30-tin cases a year.

Since removing the product, he said the phone has been ringing off the hook with people requesting the mints.

Well, I certainly agree with the message of the product. Perhaps one of the US posters could buy a box or two and mail them to the White House? A certain Mr. Barack H. Obama does seem to need a reminder or two that a spine can do him good every now and then.

 

Actually, I think the way he did it was better - now, that's something I didn't expect to have to write about that case . If he were making a public statement as an official, then he would be speaking as the voice of authority, which imo would make it more of a threat - and bring attention to what is essentially a non-issue. My view is that if you have personal grievances, you shouldn't air them over an official channel; it strikes me as unprofessional to mix the two, especially when you are working in the public sector and you are essentially dragging the government into it. If he had done that, imo it would be even worse.

The disappoint-mints do seem like a really good idea, anyway. I wonder if they can make the boxes with different pictures and if people can mail them to the offices of elected officials - though with the amount sent, I hope they make a diet version .

 

It depends. Maybe I'm thinking the wrong way about it, but if it is a personal matter, I expect it to be settled personally - and a "I heard that you have some anti-Obama mints" phonecall strikes me as quite absurd (as in, more than the situation is). Generally, an official statement brings a lot more publicity and scrutiny on the issue, and should only be done if the matter has to be brought by the public. In the case of private grievances, I find it inappropriate.

As I see it, the issue of whether there was any threat hangs around whether Amstrong made a private complain (everyone is entitled to a sense of taste - good or bad) or if he wanted to speak in his capacity as a state representative. What I've read so far is inconclusive. I'm not sure either counts as infringing the shopkeeper's freedom of speech anymore than the same statement from a member of another respected group (i.e. military, police, University donor, local Rotary club etc), though.

As I see it, the way Armstrong handled the whole thing was quite absurd and certainly worthy of derision, but if we start accusing him of stifling free speech or the like, I feel we might be making mountains out of molehills. You know, the same thing he did.

 

Didn't he do both? He went to the store to personally address the manager, and he went through the press to make his actions known to the public. Saying it was better (or worse) to do it one way or the other doesn't even apply here, as he did both. Armstrong went in there guns blazin' (figuratively speaking of course).

 

I was under the impression someone else told the media about it. If it was him, he really is an idiot.

 

I'm not against the guy speaking as a private citizen and saying that he found the mints offensive. But when he does so he must be very clear about the fact that he is only speaking as a private citizen and not in his official capacity. And none of this "wink wink nudge nudge 'I'm not going to bring the full power of my authority down on your publicly funded bookstore and possibly bone you out of your livelihood, oh no, I'm NOT going to do that!' wink wink nudge nudge!"

I want some of these mints -- I want to buy the anti-Obama ones, the anti-Bush ones, the anti-Palin ones, and whichever other ones they've got!

 

Heh, if I were living in the US I'd probably buy a few boxes of these, especially if they made more generic disappoint-mint ones. That would make a pretty nice present for a politician - and quite a few other people, I'd wager .