SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As a result of a social media campaign, last week makers of the famous geek-popular toy highly sophisticated inter-locking brick system the Lego Group has stopped giving away polybags with print copies of the Daily Mail, something it has done for years in occasional promotions.
The Daily Mail is frequently criticised for its right-wing stance and critics often claim that many of the stories are either inaccurate or utterly fabricated, as the quote below from the " Stop Funding Hate" campaign shows:
While I disagree with their political stand I can accept their right to have it. But lately their headlines have gone beyond offering a right wing opinion. Headlines that do nothing but create distrust of foreigners, blame immigrants for everything, and as of yesterday are now having a go at top judges in the U.K. for being gay while making a legal judgment.
Another article from The Independent has more background.
Lego spokesperson Roar Rude Trangbaek told The Independent: "We spend a lot of time listening to what children have to say. And when parents and grandparents take the time to let us know how they feel, we always listen just as carefully.
"[...] The agreement with The Daily Mail has finished and we have no plans to run any promotional activity with the newspaper in the foreseeable future."
Other targets of "Stop Funding Hate" include John Lewis, Waitrose, and Marks & Spencer.
Is this a case of the liberal left shouting and screaming to enforce a kind of corporate self-censorship, or simply free markets and freedom of speech working together as they should?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:34PM
Okay, go shut down the DM and the Grauniad for both spouting endless bullshit at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Then attempt to reconcile your prejudice [libertyfund.org] with liberalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:30PM
My point was really only that I cannot imagine being liberal is supposed to mean that one cannot stand up and say "you have said enough, it is time for someone else to be heard as well".
I.e. that shutting someone up for example because they are a hindrance to others who would contribute more is very much in the liberal spirit, as well as for reasons like that they in fact hurt others. And that these should be seen as qualitatively completely different reasons from just not liking what someone says, or because your God says they are not allowed to say it.
But if you wish to turn this back on topic: I have no interest in shutting down any of them, personally. However I support campaigning for advertising money to go to other actors and other actions to reduce their influence and protest what they write, and have no particular issue if that should result in them shutting down.
Maybe it is due to not being a native speaker, but I do not follow what your link has to do with it. Not only is there no magistrate involved (neither literally nor any government official) but also there is a good argument that the Daily Mail is at least straddling the boundaries of "break the public peace of societies".
It would seem to go even further than what I said "but only the injury done unto men’s neighbours, and to the commonwealth", i.e. the quote suggests that even the government should get involved if speech hurts others or society. I only talked about individual involvment. Are you sure that, contrary to me, Locke would not actually be in favour of shutting down the Daily Mail? Not that I think we should assign too much value to writings of 300 years ago, such concepts as "sin against God" are truly and thoroughly dead in at least many parts of Europe and thus the main argument of the quote has lost its relevance. Should we really try to milk it for more?
Lastly, I do not consider myself a liberal anyway as I don't particularly believe corporations and monetary possessions above a certain limit to truly be part of "personal liberties" so I won't be overly hurt if my opinions are not compatible with liberalism.
But when I hear what people like you writing I wonder if the definition of a liberal has become "must not give a shit about society or humanity as a whole and in fact support those that take the liberty of damaging them most". I would find that sad in light of fond memories I have of "great liberals" of the German FDP for example that did not subscribe to that view I believe.