Islamofascist-Dhimmi Axis Assault on Free Speech

Muslims Against Sharia are proud to be the first Muslim group to publicly support Ezra Levant and denounce HRC inquisition.

Proceedings against Ezra Levant are nothing short of ridiculous. HRC legitimizes radicals' claims that Islam cannot be criticized and Freedom of Speech only applies to radical Muslims.

But Ezra Levant is not alone. The latest casualties of Islamofascist-Dhimmi Axis Assault on Free Speech include Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Fouad al-Farhan, Joe Kaufman, and Mark Steyn. Are you going to be next? http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/islamofascist-dhimmi-axis-assault-on.html

I agree that the Human Rights Commission's attempt to stifle free speech is deplorable. Let me add, though, that it is still very troubling that the issue of promoting hate against Muslims is not brought up. What would the reaction be if a paper were to run "Little Black Sambo" cartoons?

I agree that the Human Rights Commission's attempt to stifle free speech is deplorable. Let me add, though, that it is still very troubling that the issue of promoting hate against Muslims is not brought up. What would the reaction be if a paper were to run "Little Black Sambo" cartoons?

Unless it was part of a historical article, hopefully the result would be that no one would buy the paper. Or perhaps the papers advertisers would be pressured.

Anonymous.

It depends on who runs the cartoon. If it is a 'conservative' publication then it is deemed hateful. If it is a 'liberal' one then they get a free pass. Did you see the racist cartoons published of Condoleeza Rice? They were vile, but acceptable, because of the publication's liberal views - which state that blacks must stay on the victim plantation.

That being said, how often do Christians have to put up with 'artists' smearing feces or semen on Jesus, Mary, or submerging the cross in urine? Quite often, and they don't murder the atheist scum doing it.

Since when did the truth become wrong? Muslims continue to rape, stone, and behead people simply because they are not Muslims. If one can't ridicule them for it then Freedom surely is lost.

A torrent of all the videos, along with some info (mostly from Leavant's website) is now available:

http://www.isohunt.com/torrents/?ihq=%22Ezra+levant%22

I think that should be "former" publisher (unless you count online as publishing.) Mr. Levant's print magazine is outta business.

From what I have been able to find out about the Alberta Human Rights Commission, it was set up to provide "dispute resolution services in cases of alleged discrimination." Those found guilty of discrimination face punishments such as educational seminars, development (by guilty party) of policy to prevent similar discriminatory acts from occurring in the future, or making a donation to a charitable organization.

A guilty Levant would not exactly be facing the Rack, so perhaps calling this an "inquisition" may be overstating it a bit. (Although it's certainly brought out the conservative instinct for victimhood, judging by Marko's comment, "If it is a 'conservative' publication then it is deemed hateful. If it is a 'liberal' one then they get a free pass.") And if his Wiki entry is true, Mr. Levant is highly skilled at grandstanding, and I'd imagine he is thrilling to this moment in the sun.

Note: the individual who complained about Levant to the Alberta Human Rights Commission now has had a complaint filed against him by female employees. Ahh, the circle of life!

And I will note a bit of hypocrisy here again. It appears there are certain somebodies who will fight to the death (yes, I'm being sarcastic) to allow Canadian publishers to print Mohammed cartoons in obscure magazines, but draw the line at fighting for the rights of an artist, and his gallery, to show a sculpture of a chocolate Jesus in New York City.

And I will note a bit of hypocrisy here again. It appears there are certain somebodies who will fight to the death (yes, I'm being sarcastic) to allow Canadian publishers to print Mohammed cartoons in obscure magazines, but draw the line at fighting for the rights of an artist, and his gallery, to show a sculpture of a chocolate Jesus in New York City.

Since artists do not have a "right" to display their art on someone else's property (though they can get permission from the owner), I don't know how InTheAgora bloggers or anyone else would defend the "right" of Cosimo Cavallaro to display his chocolate Jesus at a particular hotel.

Also, do you really not see a difference between a governmental organ threatening to punish a magazine publisher for the content of his magazines, on one hand, and a private property owner disinviting an artist in response to protests of the art, on the other?

Karl,

Also, do you really not see a difference between a governmental organ threatening to punish a magazine publisher for the content of his magazines, on one hand, and a private property owner disinviting an artist in response to protests of the art, on the other?

First of all, the AHRC is not "threatening to punish a magazine publisher for the content of his magazines." It is responding to a complaint lodged by another Canadian citizen who claims to have been discriminated against as a result of the contents of Levant's magazine. Canada wouldn't have threatened to punish Levant at all for the content of his magazines if that complaint hadn't been lodged.

I would imagine if this same individual had claimed that The Satanic Verses caused him to be discriminated against, that Salmon Rushdie would also have to defend himself before the AHRC. It certainly seems like an imperfect system to me, but is it any worse than our own American system for resolving grievances?

Regarding free speech. Cavallo's gallery wanted to show the artist's work but the show was canceled after death threats were issued. I find it hypocritical that the Gallery's and Cavallo's free speech rights weren't championed on this website in the same way that Levant's were.

First of all, the AHRC is not "threatening to punish a magazine publisher for the content of his magazines." It is responding to a complaint lodged by another Canadian citizen who claims to have been discriminated against as a result of the contents of Levant's magazine. Canada wouldn't have threatened to punish Levant at all for the content of his magazines if that complaint hadn't been lodged.

What difference does it make how the proceeding was initiated? It is still the power of the government that is being used against him.

Also, the person who filed a complaint against Levant does not appear to have claimed that anyone has discriminated against him as a result of the publication of these cartoons. Unfortunately, it was not even necessary for him to make that kind of claim.

I would imagine if this same individual had claimed that The Satanic Verses caused him to be discriminated against, that Salmon Rushdie would also have to defend himself before the AHRC. It certainly seems like an imperfect system to me, but is it any worse than our own American system for resolving grievances?

I do not know why the fact that, theoretically, Salmon Rushdie could also be forced to justify his speech (or writing) to a government commission reduces the significance of these threats to freedoms of speech and the press. I also cannot answer your question because the American system generally does not address this kind of grievance.

Regarding free speech. Cavallo's gallery wanted to show the artist's work but the show was canceled after death threats were issued. I find it hypocritical that the Gallery's and Cavallo's free speech rights weren't championed on this website in the same way that Levant's were.

This blog seems to have an informal general rule against "PASWO" blogging, which would probably have prevented them from blogging about the alleged death threats (if they had even heard about them). It wouldn't have made a very interesting or worthwhile post, because all they could do is condemn anonymous individuals for allegedly doing something that almost everyone is against -- "Point At Something With Outrage." When laws and government policies are involved, there is more to say, or at least more of a reason to say it.

Karl

What difference does it make how the proceeding was initiated? It is still the power of the government that is being used against him.

I would think the difference is key. It's not like the heavy censorious hand of Canadian gov't came down on poor Mr. Levant because of content in his magazine. The Canadian gov't has set up a commission to deal with issues of discrimination, most of which appear to be workplace related. From what I gather, the commission first tries to have the parties resolve the issue between themselves, then it goes to an arbitrator, and if that doesn't work out, a commission hearing is the last resort. THAT is what Levant got caught up in, not some Canadian gov't witch hunt against right-wing magazine publishers.
Mr. Levant has been required to defend himself because of a complaint by another citizen who claims the content in Mr. Levant's magazine has caused him to be discriminated against. It will be interesting to see how the Commission rules.

You and others may continue to frame this as "threats to freedoms of speech and the press" and "the power of gov't" against a small publisher, but that's baloney. It appears that Levant knew exactly what he was doing. Look up his Wiki entry, he is certainly not averse to a little controversy. If found guilty, as punishment, Levant will be forced to attend political-correctness classes or donate to a charity or some such nonsense. That's your big threat to "freedom of the press?" Do you really want to see an instance when freedom of the press was threatened? Then read former AP and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry's book "Lost History" about Iran-Contra. http://www.amazon.com/Lost-History-Contras-Cocaine-Project/dp/1893517004 (And revel in the role the "liberal" NY Times played in keeping reporters like Parry in line.)

I have no desire to reprise my earlier endless debate with you over what I saw as easy free-speech comparisons between intolerant Muslims howling about the cartoons of Mohammed and intolerant Catholics like Bill Donohue and his Catholic League howling about Cavallo's sculpture of Christ. I don't like it when the gov't stifles frees speech, and I don't like it when powerful national organizations like Bill Donohue' Catholic League do it, either. And that was always Donohue's intent. He said he wanted to keep the show from going up. That's not protest. That's stifling free speech. Donohue stifled the gallery's right to show it, and my right to view it. And I didn't hear any howls of protest from libertarians.

The Canadian gov't has set up a commission to deal with issues of discrimination, most of which appear to be workplace related. From what I gather, the commission first tries to have the parties resolve the issue between themselves, then it goes to an arbitrator, and if that doesn't work out, a commission hearing is the last resort. THAT is what Levant got caught up in, not some Canadian gov't witch hunt against right-wing magazine publishers.

The distinction is irrelevant, other than in considering the severity of the problem. It is government action whether the government acts on its own or in response to the petition of a citizen.

Also, the difference between a request and a command usually is what the issuer will do as a "last resort."

You and others may continue to frame this as "threats to freedoms of speech and the press" and "the power of gov't" against a small publisher, but that's baloney. It appears that Levant knew exactly what he was doing.

Levant knowing the likely consequences of publishing something offensive does not prevent those consequences from being threats to freedom of speech and the press. Rosa Parks knew what would happen if she were to sit in the front of a bus, but she should have been able to sit there without consequences, regardless of whether she knew what would happen.

If found guilty, as punishment, Levant will be forced to attend political-correctness classes or donate to a charity or some such nonsense. That's your big threat to "freedom of the press?"

I have not called it a "big" threat to freedom of the press, though I do believe that any action to deliberately limit that freedom is serious.

You are also understating the consequences and potential consequences. Under the Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act, a human rights panel can order Levant to stop publishing the material (currently, they remain published on his blog), order him to refrain from publishing anything similarly offensive in the future, order him to compensate the person who filed the complaint, and "take any other action the panel considers proper to place the person dealt with contrary to this Act in the position the person would have been in but for the contravention of this Act." As Levant himself pointed out in his opening statement, the fact that he can be required to appear before a government commission to explain himself, and to pay the costs of defending himself and the magazine, in order to defend the offensive but plainly legitimate exercise of his rights is itself akin to a penalty for exercising those rights. (Even the law that governs the AHRC recognizes this by allowing human rights complaints to be filed against people who file frivolous complaints; of course, this option would not be available to Levant, because that law specifically authorizes complaints to be filed over published material that "is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt...") Even if he wins, he will have suffered consequences for the legitimate exercise of his free speech/press rights.

And that was always Donohue's intent. He said he wanted to keep the show from going up. That's not protest. That's stifling free speech.

Yes, it is protest. Protesters always want somebody to do something or stop doing something. When they use boycotts to affect the actions of others, they do so precisely because boycotts can punish the actor in ways that do not violate its rights.

And I didn't hear any howls of protest from libertarians.

Why would libertarians protest a boycott?

Karl

Where you see the heavy hand of gov't coming down hard on one lonely publisher for printing controversial cartoons, I see an easily insulted Canadian citizen taking advantage of a commission largely devoted to settling workplace discrimination disputes, in order to hit back at the lonely publisher for publishing the cartoons that insulted him. I do not believe the commission was set up to censor the press. This appears to be an unusual situation. And the fact that the publisher basically faces a slap on the hand if found guilty, makes this whole flap even more insignificant. But in Googling Levant, I see he has become some kind of right-wing cause celebre. Fine, but where some may see him as a martyr for freedom of the press, I see him as a self-promoting provocateur who is probably not all that unhappy in the limelight, embroiled in controversy. (Although I suspect he was courting controversy of another sort, as he more accurately reprinted the cartoons, and was well aware of what happened in Europe when they were originally printed). But no matter. He's your hero now, and you're welcome to him.

But if it's freedom of the press we're really concerned with (and not just politically correct speech north of the border), then it might be an idea to consider some real threats to it instead playing Canadian fiddles while Rome burns. Like media consolidation. And "embedding" reporters to report on wars. And punishing reporters by cutting off access when they report unflattering stories. And by powerful gov't officials putting in calls to editors and/or publishers to kill, or postpone, negative stories. I mentioned a Robert Parry book called "Lost History" earlier upthread. It's about the systematic suppression of stories on Iran-Contra by 3 successive administrations (Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton) with the willing participation of major news organizations. Parry has accounts of a certain famous NY Times editor (partial to President Reagan's anti-Communist Central American policies) who threatened the careers of reporters at other news organizations who reported on Iran-Contra too aggressively. We live with the consequences today. Aside from a few brave reporters like Dana Priest and Seymour Hirsch, most reporters nowadays toe the party line, knowing which side their careers are buttered on. Which is why most of the American reporting on the buildup to the War in Iraq was so unquestioning of the Administration (notably excepting Knight-Ridder, now the McClatchy Company). I'm not even going to get into the FCC's role in stifling speech, because the the public airwaves are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Why would libertarians protest a boycott?

Why they wouldn't of course. But a boycott is the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some other organization as an expression of protest. Bill Donohue (of the Catholic League) expressly said his intention was to make sure Cavallo's sculpture never went on display. That's not a boycott, that's censorship.

I see an easily insulted Canadian citizen taking advantage of a commission largely devoted to settling workplace discrimination disputes, in order to hit back at the lonely publisher for publishing the cartoons that insulted him. I do not believe the commission was set up to censor the press.

No, it wasn't, but the law authorizing it includes a code of conduct that, if violated, would allow a complaint to be brought. "3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that...is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt." Whether or not published material is "likely" to expose someone to contempt is a matter of opinion, of course, permitting complaints to be filed over any statement that is even arguably offensive.

But no matter. He's your hero now, and you're welcome to him.

I don't believe I have called him my hero, but I do believe that he is right to challenge this commission.

Why they wouldn't of course. But a boycott is the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some other organization as an expression of protest. Bill Donohue (of the Catholic League) expressly said his intention was to make sure Cavallo's sculpture never went on display. That's not a boycott, that's censorship.

Boycotts are not merely an expression of protest. They are always intended to change someone's behavior, whether the organizers expect to succeed or not. (Actually, that is also the goal of any form of protest.) If you believe that a boycott that is meant to prevent art from going on display affects the freedom of expression, do you also believe that other boycotts that are intended to make someone do something or stop doing something are an attack on other freedoms?

Karl

Here are some definitions of the word "boycott":

noun
a group's refusal to have commercial dealings with some organization in protest against its policies

verb
refuse to sponsor; refuse to do business with

noun
the mode of protest against a policy, event, activity etc by abstaining from participation without causing direct damage. Eg. Boycotting a meeting which is intended to make a regulation with which the boycotters won't agree. Boycott is generally resorted to catch public attention for the cause of their protest.

Now here's a definition of the word "censor:"

noun
a person who is authorized to read publications or correspondence or to watch theatrical performances and suppress in whole or in part anything considered obscene or politically unacceptable

Verb

1. censor - forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper)

2. subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; "This magazine is censored by the government."

I would disagree with any characterization of what Donohue and his Catholic League did to Cavallo and his gallery as a "boycott." Refuse to do business with the gallery? Abstain from participation without causing direct damage? Not exactly! Prevent an art gallery from showing a sculpture that they considered unacceptable? Bingo!

I would disagree with any characterization of what Donohue and his Catholic League did to Cavallo and his gallery as a "boycott." Refuse to do business with the gallery? Abstain from participation without causing direct damage? Not exactly! Prevent an art gallery from showing a sculpture that they considered unacceptable? Bingo!

Again, boycotts always have an objective, and that objective is to affect an actor's behavior or policies. What matters is not what Donohue wanted to accomplish, but how he chose to accomplish it. Your paragraph above suggests that Donohue's actions could be characterized as either "Refuse to do business with the gallery" or "Prevent an art gallery from showing a sculpture that they considered unacceptable," but not both. However, it does not have to be one or the other -- they refused to do business with the gallery and hotel in order to prevent the gallery from showing that sculpture.

Also, you are reading the definition of boycott very narrowly, and the definition of "censor" very permissively. Your definition of "censor" involves forbidding the public distribution of a work or idea or subjecting it to the possibility of such censorship, or to a person who is authorized to suppress objectionable material. You think it applies to a private citizen's effort to apply economic pressure in concert with other private citizens, with the goal of stopping the display of the sculpture. However, you don't think that your definition of boycott, which refers to a group refusing to have commercial dealings with another in protest of its policies, does describe that private citizen's actions. I find your conclusions questionable.

Also, here is the Meriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of boycott: "to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions."

Karl

"to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions."

And what does the above have to do with what Donohue and his Catholic League organized? That was no "boycott" by any stretch of the word. A "boycott" would have involved urging art lovers, members of the community, and tourists to forego attending the opening of the show, viewing the sculpture in the gallery, and making any attempts to purchase the work. To hit the gallery in its economic gut. That would have involved getting the word out to members of the community in various ways: via the pulpit, via the media, a letter writing campaign, and/or peacefully picketing in front of the gallery.

What Donohue actually organized was a prorest campaign of intimidation, not a peaceful boycott. He used the media and his mailing list to generate a letter writing and phone-in campaign directly to the gallery by his followers, with the expressed intent of making sure the Cavallo show never opened. For some reason I am certain that you will be telling me that Donohue had no idea...no idea whatsoever!..that some of those letters and phone calls would be of a threatening nature. You can tell that to the Marines.

And what does the above have to do with what Donohue and his Catholic League organized? That was no "boycott" by any stretch of the word. A "boycott" would have involved urging art lovers, members of the community, and tourists to forego attending the opening of the show, viewing the sculpture in the gallery, and making any attempts to purchase the work. To hit the gallery in its economic gut. That would have involved getting the word out to members of the community in various ways: via the pulpit, via the media, a letter writing campaign, and/or peacefully picketing in front of the gallery.

He called for people who find the sculpture offensive to avoid doing business with the hotel, and contacted other organizations to get them involved as well. That's a boycott.

What Donohue actually organized was a prorest campaign of intimidation, not a peaceful boycott. He used the media and his mailing list to generate a letter writing and phone-in campaign directly to the gallery by his followers, with the expressed intent of making sure the Cavallo show never opened. For some reason I am certain that you will be telling me that Donohue had no idea...no idea whatsoever!..that some of those letters and phone calls would be of a threatening nature. You can tell that to the Marines.

You say that unless Donohue "had no idea...no idea whatsoever!..that some of those letters and phone calls would be of a threatening nature," he was organizing a "prorest campaign of intimidation." This, too, is a remarkable stretch. For Donohue to be said to have organized a campaign of intimidation, he should have to do more than anticipate that people other than himself might independently decide to make threats (instead of calling or writing to state their opinion of the sculpture without making threats). Otherwise, every call-in or write-in campaign would be a "prorest campaign of intimidation," because it is always reasonable to expect that some people will go too far. Also, adding some kind of letter-writing and phone-calling campaign to a boycott would not cause the boycott to cease to be a boycott, so I'm not sure why you would suggest that it does. He can do two things at once.

Karl

Yes, calling for people who find the sculpture offensive to avoid doing business with the hotel and contacting other organizations to get them involved is indeed a boycott. Absolutely. But Donohue didn't stop there. Again, a boycott is designed to encourage people not to patronize, in this case, an art gallery with an "offensive" sculpture. If that's all that happened, that would have been fine. The gallery could have still, as it had every right to do, displayed Cavallo's sculpture, and the public would have had the right to shun the gallery -- or not. But we, the public, were't given that choice. Donohue didn't limit himself to urging the public to avoid the gallery show because the sculpture was an affront to Catholics. His expressed intention, once again, was to prevent the sculpture from being shown. Period. Urging one particular outcome (don't attend) is quite different from urging his preferred outcome (don't show it). One is a legitimate boycott, the other is censorship. Not gov't censorship, but censorship by a powerful religious organization nonetheless.

As for the letter writing/phone-in campaign. That is NOT a boycott. Boycotts are peaceful and not designed to intimidate. I would suggest that certain phone-in/write-in campaigns are designed to intimidate. That his could get ugly, as it did in the Cavallo case, is something that Donohue should have anticipated. After all, his Catholic League protests have a history of ugliness. Ask Kevin Smith. Donohue pronounced his movie "Dogma" blasphemous, and organized protests. Smith's lawyer complained that Donohue was trying to stir up a violent reaction to the movie. After Donohue denounced Terrence McNally's play "Corpus Christi" as blasphemous, he organized protests. The production was cancelled after the theater received bomb threats, threats to kill the staff, and the play's writer. After Donohue demanded the firings of two bloggers hired early on in the Edwards presidential campaign that he pronounced anti-Catholic, one of the bloggers received rape/death threats.

Organizing phone-in/write-in campaigns to elected representatives or the FCC for instance is one thing. But rousing the rabble, especially about something emotionally volatile as religion, and then siccing them on a small NYC gallery is just asking for trouble. But never mind about that, Donohue was perfectly happy with his outcome, no matter how he achieved it. He was positively gloating when he appeared on CNN afterwards with the artist himself, telling Cavallo, "you gave the Catholic Church the middle finger and we broke it!"

I say Donohue's stated goal was indefensible and his methods were unsavory. But if you want to continue to defend him, while knocking Canada for what it did to Levant, please be my guest.

In response to your first paragraph, again, it does not matter what he intended to accomplish by conducting a boycott. Intending to cause someone to take a particular course of action does not cause the boycott used to accomplish that to cease to be a boycott. Every boycott is intended to cause an actor to do something or stop doing something, through economic pressure. You didn't really answer my question about this before -- If you believe that a boycott that is meant to prevent art from going on display affects the freedom of expression, do you also believe that other boycotts that are intended to make someone do something or stop doing something are an attack on other freedoms?

In response to your paragraph, no, a write-in and call-in campaign is not a boycott, but I did not claim that it is -- I wrote that Donohue conducted a boycott, not that he did nothing else. (Also, though I can't say confidently that Donohue did not encourage people to write letters and make phone calls, his Cavallaro-related press releases never instruct his Catholic League members to do this, and the boycott is plainly the centerpiece.)

But never mind about that, Donohue was perfectly happy with his outcome, no matter how he achieved it. He was positively gloating when he appeared on CNN afterwards with the artist himself, telling Cavallo, "you gave the Catholic Church the middle finger and we broke it!"

What did he say that indicated to you that he was "perfectly happy" with the alleged death threats?

I say Donohue's stated goal was indefensible and his methods were unsavory. But if you want to continue to defend him, while knocking Canada for what it did to Levant, please be my guest.

I don't particularly like Donohue, but he did not threaten anyone's rights in order to pressure the hotel to do what he wanted. The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission did (to pressure Lavant, not a hotel, of course).

In response to your first paragraph, again, it does not matter what he intended to accomplish by conducting a boycott.

You're right. My problem is with what he was trying to accomplish. And other aspects of his organized protest.

What did he say that indicated to you that he was "perfectly happy" with the alleged death threats?

I didn't say that he was "perfectly happy" with the death threats. I said he was "perfectly happy" with the outcome resulting from the death threats.

but he did not threaten anyone's rights in order to pressure the hotel to do what he wanted.

The gallery's rights weren't threatened? The gallery didn't have the right to display the sculpture? My rights weren't threatened? I didn't have the right to go to the gallery to view it if that's what I chose to do? Do you honestly think that sculpture constituted hate speech?

If you believe that a boycott that is meant to prevent art from going on display affects the freedom of expression, do you also believe that other boycotts that are intended to make someone do something or stop doing something are an attack on other freedoms?

All boycotts are not created equal. I would not have supported a boycott of a movie theater that intended to show "The Last Temptation of Christ." I would have supported a boycott of Fox News for not allowing Ron Paul to participate in a presidential debate.

I didn't say that he was "perfectly happy" with the death threats. I said he was "perfectly happy" with the outcome resulting from the death threats.

What you said was, "[R]ousing the rabble, especially about something emotionally volatile as religion, and then siccing them on a small NYC gallery is just asking for trouble. But never mind about that, Donohue was perfectly happy with his outcome, no matter how he achieved it. He was positively gloating when he appeared on CNN afterwards..." If you are saying that you meant only that he was happy that the sculpture was not displayed, I'll believe you, but that is an obvious and unremarkable statement to make, and I don't know what point you could have had in mind.

The gallery's rights weren't threatened?

No.

The gallery didn't have the right to display the sculpture?

Yes, it did.

My rights weren't threatened?

No.

I didn't have the right to go to the gallery to view it if that's what I chose to do?

I think the source of your confusion is in thinking that it doesn't make a difference what it is that stops you from seeing the scuplture. No, you do not have an absolute right to see the sculpture, but you have the right to not be prevented by certain means from seeing it. If a hotel chooses to stop allowing it to be displayed, in response to people and organizations saying that they would no longer use the hotel or in response to bad publicity, then no, it does not violate your right to see it. If the government had threatened to fine or arrest you if you went to see it, or if someone had threatened to beat you up or throw rocks at your windows if you went to see it, then your right would have been violated.

Similarly, though the hotel and gallery (assuming that the gallery was an entity of some kind) have rights, those rights don't guard them against every kind of consequence. The right of freedom of expression guards against anyone directly closing down the exhibit, and against people holding their other rights hostage to pressure them to close the exhibit. Donohue and his people neither closed the display directly (walking in and personally tearing everything down, or barricading the entrance) nor threatened to violate any of the hotel or gallery's other rights. They just applied economic pressure by refusing to do business with the hotel in the future, and Donohue and his people were well within their own rights in doing so.

It makes a difference how someone influences the actions of another. Certain actions can affect the actor's freedom, and others don't.

Do you honestly think that sculpture constituted hate speech?

I don't think it makes a difference whether the sculpture constituted hate speech. Donohue and his people had a right to conduct a boycott of the hotel for any or no reason.

All boycotts are not created equal. I would not have supported a boycott of a movie theater that intended to show "The Last Temptation of Christ." I would have supported a boycott of Fox News for not allowing Ron Paul to participate in a presidential debate.

I'm not asking whether all boycotts are equally appropriate. I'm asking whether all boycotts, if they are intended to pressure a person to take a particular action, limit that person's freedom to make a different choice. Your Ron Paul suggestion is a good example. Fox News evidently wanted to air a particular kind of debate, exercising its freedom of expression. If a successful boycott of their debate caused Fox to admit Ron Paul to its debate, doesn't that affect Fox's right to broadcast what it wants, by your reasoning (not by mine, obviously)?