censorship, of a sort

[jrtom]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-27-prez-money_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

This is a fairly innocuous article, talking about the fact that Obama's been having more success getting money from the US business community as a whole. It refers to (and quotes) one Dan Cooper:

Dan Cooper, a proud member of the National Rifle Association, has backed Republicans for most of his life. He's the chief executive of Cooper Arms, a small Montana company that makes hunting rifles.
Cooper said he voted for George W. Bush in 2000, having voted in past elections for every Republican presidential nominee back to Richard Nixon. In October 1992, he presented a specially made rifle to the first President. Bush during a Billings campaign event.

This year, Cooper has given $3,300 to the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama. That's on top of the $1,000 check he wrote to Obama's U.S. Senate campaign in 2004, after he was dazzled by Obama's speech at that year's Democratic National Convention.

If you read through to the comments, they'll lead you here:

http://www.cooperfirearms.com/

In case the message on the front page doesn't stay up long, here it is in its entirety:

In response to the recent article highlighting Dan Cooper’s personal political donations, the board of directors, shareholders and employees of Cooper Firearms of Montana, Inc would like to issue the following statement. The employees, shareholders and board of directors of Cooper Firearms of Montana do not share the personal political views of Dan Cooper. Although we all believe everyone has a right to vote and donate as they see fit, it has become apparent that the fallout may affect more than just Mr. Cooper. It may also affect the employees and the shareholders of Cooper Firearms.

The board of directors has asked Mr. Cooper to resign as President of Cooper Firearms of Montana, Inc. Daily operations will continue with the competent staff currently in place in Stevensville, MT producing the finest, most accurate rifles money can buy.

Dan Cooper has spent all of his working life producing the highest quality rifles built here in the USA. He started with nothing but the American Dream and built that into firearms company anyone would be proud of. We firmly believe Dan stands by the 2nd amendment.
We wish him all of the best in his future pursuits.

This decision was apparently made in response to threats of boycotting, outlined here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-30-gun-ceo-ousted_N.htm

Scared people sometimes do crappy things; I get that. And it seems likely that the BoD of Cooper Firearms was worried about their company going under, so they threw the company's founder under (the bus) instead.

But seriously, this is bullshit. This is knuckling under to what is, in essence, a political attack.

I don't know if Cooper has standing to sue or not--it seems likely he holds stock in the company--but I suspect that Cooper Firearms is not going to come out of this any better for having thrown out their own founder.

Comments

[linoge (from livejournal.com)]

... except it is not censorship, in any way, shape, or form.

The Cooper Firearms company did not squelch his right to free speech. They did not tell him he had to stop supporting Obama. They did not infringe on his God-granted and Constitutionally-protected rights. Instead, the company did what it would do when confronted with any employee who is about to cost said company potentially copious amounts of money - they asked him to leave.

Perfectly understandable, that.

Consider this alternative: A high-ranking official within the NAACP comes forward and professes to having donated a substantial amount of money to the KKK. What, exactly, do you think would happen next?

And would those actions be censorship? Or "bullshit"? Or "knuckling under"? Far from it.

Or, even beter, what if Dan himself had professed to supporting the KKK? Would that change the situation / your opinion?

As the line goes, "You cannot kneel down in the middle of a highway and live to tell about it, son." Every action has a consequence, a repercussion, a price, and Dan really should have thought more about what the results would be if he supported a rabidly anti-rights Presidential candidate.

Of course, I am speaking as one of those people who promised to boycott Cooper Firearms so long as Dan was there (http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2008/10/turncoat.html), so you will probably discard my opinions immediately.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Taking your comments in order:

As I said in the title: "censorship, of a sort". I agree that it's not censorship per se. It is, however, a case of being punished for exercise of free speech.


"Perfectly understandable", you say. Let's say you founded a company that makes ultrasound machines. Let's further suppose that you are strongly pro-life, donate money to the McCain campaign, and are subsequently interviewed about this support. Finally, let's suppose that your company starts getting threats from pro-choice doctors to stop buying your ultrasound machines unless they fire you, so they fire you.

Would such an action also be 'perfectly understandable', in your view? I promise you, even though I am pro-choice and definitely not a McCain supporter, I'd be pissed as hell on your behalf if that had happened to you, and if I'd found that story instead of Cooper's, I'd have posted it here.


Your analogy is cute, but not really relevant. The KKK is, not to put too fine a point on it, a domestic terrorist organization. And supporting the KKK does not seem to be consistent with the goals of the NAACP _as an organization_. Contrariwise, there _are_ a number of people that are gun owners and users that support Obama and his policies.

"What if Dan himself had professed to supporting the KKK?" Heck, why not add a few more things on there? Make him a serial killer. Make him a professed hater of kittens, Mom, and apple pie, and an inveterate burner of flags.

That's a different situation, and I think that it should have been handled differently.


"You cannot kneel down...": so, as one of the people that contacted the company and promised (emptily, as you weren't in the market for one of their guns) to boycott them, you've just put yourself in that analogy as the driver of a car on that highway, and specifically as someone who apparently believes that kneeling in the middle of a highway is a death sentence...you're going to run him down.
Aren't analogies fun?

Dan may well have thought through his decision and its likely consequences. Maybe he was willing to take the risk that there were enough reflexive jerks out there to get him canned. You don't know any more on that subject than I do.

"Rabidly anti-rights"? This here is Obama's actual position as a candidate: http://obama.3cdn.net/7d467fe75a3029d7df_hum6injwr.pdf
I followed some of your links off the post you referenced above. I'd say that he's not 'anti-rights', he simply disagrees with you as to the degree of freedom with which some rights ought to be able to be exercised. Nor is he 'rabid' about anything, as far as I know.


I don't claim that there's a simple decision for cases like these. I've been chewing on a similar situation for years: someone whose work I admire has some political views that I strongly disagree with, and I've considered boycotting them as a result. But I'm not calling a witch hunt on that person regardless of my eventual decision.


You are welcome to take whatever position you like regarding Obama's candidacy, or Cooper's advocacy of it. But I do not believe that Cooper Firearms' board of directors' decision was the honorable one.