Is Boycotting Blackmail?

[Phi for All]

It was brought up in this thread that boycotting is a form of blackmail. Boycotting threatens a company with tarnishing their public image if they don't give something up. Taking away business dollars in this organized method is no different than threatening to publish dirty photos if the victim doesn't pay up.

 

I don't think it's blackmail. Boycotts are usually over some great injustice prepetrated by the company being boycotted. They call for the company to adhere to the spirit of the laws rather than the letter only. Nothing is gained personally by the boycotters and nothing was taken away that wasn't already decided by the will of the consumers in the first place. A corporate image is already in danger if activists are organizing a boycott.

 

What do you think? Is boycotting blackmail? Why or why not?

[YT2095]

No, it`s simply voting with your feet.

 

Blackmail is Proactive, you have to DO something (a deliberate attempt to ruin), boycotting is Not doing something (a refusal to support).

[ParanoiA]

I'm still agonizing over this. Tarnishing a business's image via a boycott because they followed the law does seem unfair. At the same time, consumers demand all kinds of unreasonable things from businesses with their wallets. The big difference seems to be organization and cooperation (boycott) vs. normal personal consumer preference. And I'm having a hard time with it philosophically.

 

As to the specifics of the OP though, I'm with YT on this one. A refusal to support is not blackmail.

 

I tried to think of it as "taking business away", but that would imply a right to a certain amount of patronage, when in reality, all of it is earned by market persuasion.

[swansont]

It's the only real leverage a consumer has — telling a business that you won't patronize them, and why, and then following through. You are under no obligation to be a customer of their business, as was pointed out in the original thread.

[drochaid]

The free market allows us to decide where we shop. Whether that is based on price, quality or any other considerations including ethical is entirely up to the individual consumer. Boycotts are calls for people not to shop with company X in order to send a message that their actions are considered unacceptable.

 

The individual consumer chooses whether or not to join the boycott.

 

The company chooses whether or not to alter its actions as a result of the boycott.

 

I therefore can see no possible way that it could be considered blackmail. Companies survive by changing in order to meet the needs of their customers .. a boycott is simply one very strong way of telling them what needs to change.

[Phi for All]

It's the only real leverage a consumer has — telling a business that you won't patronize them, and why, and then following through. You are under no obligation to be a customer of their business, as was pointed out in the original thread.

Does it make a difference when the boycott becomes organized past the single-disgruntled-customer-exercising-his-prerogative level? Is it more like blackmail when organizers gain tens of thousands of supporters by spreading "the word"? Remember that there are already laws in place in case "the word" is slanderous or libelous.

[YT2095]

Remember that there are already laws in place in case "the word" is slanderous or libelous.

 

but where this is NOT the case and it`s the Truth that is told?

 

see, Big difference

[iNow]

A big difference is that blackmail is for express personal gain by leveraging some detail against some entity in a postion to offer something, but the leverage used is not generally relevant to the gain itself... like nude photos of the boss with another woman, used to leverage a raise. If they don't comply, the photos will be shared with the boss's wife.

 

Boycott is an attempt by the consumer base to improve the actions of some supplier or entitiy, not specifically for personal gain, but for public good. Also, the mechanism of boycott is very often inherently linked and relevant to the gain being sought. Boycott is simply a refusal to add to the suppliers profits due to a disagreement with some practice. The boycott will end if that practice is improved or changed.

 

They are not the same, which is why we have two different words to describe them.

[swansont]

Boycott is an attempt by the consumer base to improve the actions of some supplier or entitiy, not specifically for personal gain, but for public good.

 

Not necessarily for the public good. It could simply be the feeling (correct or not) that the company screwed you. But it doesn't matter, because people aren't under any obligation to agree with you, either.

 

Does it make a difference when the boycott becomes organized past the single-disgruntled-customer-exercising-his-prerogative level? Is it more like blackmail when organizers gain tens of thousands of supporters by spreading "the word"? Remember that there are already laws in place in case "the word" is slanderous or libelous.

 

I don't think so. You are making others aware of the situation — it's advertising, which businesses certainly do. They try and convince us to buy their product. A boycott is an effort to convince you not to buy their product.

[doG]

blackmail

• noun

1 the demanding of money from someone in return for not revealing discreditable information.

2 the use of threats or manipulation in an attempt to influence someone’s actions.

 

• verb subject to blackmail.

 

The act of threatening someone with an action to coerce an action from them is blackmail by definition. I suppose simply boycotting someone without first threatening to do so would not technically be blackmail.

 

See also:

blackmail

1552' date=' second element is M.E. male "rent, tribute," from O.E. mal "lawsuit, terms, bargaining, agreement," from O.N. mal "speech, agreement;" related to O.E. mæðel "meeting, council," mæl "speech," Goth. maþl "meeting place." From the practice of freebooting clan chieftains who ran protection rackets against Scottish farmers. Black from the evil of the practice. [b']Expanded c.1826 to any type of extortion money. [/b]Verb is 1880.

 

[drochaid]

The act of threatening someone with an action to coerce an action from them is blackmail by definition. I suppose simply boycotting someone without first threatening to do so would not technically be blackmail.

 

I've just logged into the Oxford English Dictionary, and that second definition is not present. But regardless, it's not blackmail by any reasonable definition of the word and certainly not by the legal definition.

 

1. Hist. A tribute formerly exacted from farmers and small owners in the border counties of England and Scotland, and along the Highland border, by freebooting chiefs, in return for protection or immunity from plunder.

 

2. By extension: Any payment extorted by intimidation or pressure, or levied by unprincipled officials, critics, journalists, etc. upon those whom they have it in their power to help or injure. Now usu. a payment extorted by threats or pressure, esp. by threatening to reveal a discreditable secret; the action of extorting such a payment. Also fig.

 

3. Law. Rent reserved in labour, produce, etc., as distinguished from ‘white rents,’ which were reserved in ‘white money’ or silver. Obs. (Coke's and Blackstone's explanation of redditus nigri, which Camden appears to have taken for rents in ‘black money’ or copper.)

[ParanoiA]

the use of threats or manipulation in an attempt to influence someone’s actions.

 

The use of manipulation in an attempt to influence someone's actions? Then all social animals are engaged in one continuous orgy of blackmail.

 

As for threats, I blackmail my kids on a daily freaking basis then and it's working out well.

 

If that's the definition we're to believe then I advise picking a better word for your argument.

[Daecon]

Boycotting threatens a company with tarnishing their public image if they don't give something up.

 

I always thought boycotting something was just no longer using their services or products.

[doG]

I've just logged into the Oxford English Dictionary, and that second definition is not present. But regardless, it's not blackmail by any reasonable definition of the word and certainly not by the legal definition.

 

I just clicked on the link to the definition in the Oxford dictionary in my post and that definition is certainly there. All I did was add a line break to my copy and paste. Are you saying the Oxford Dictionary is wrong?

 

If that's the definition we're to believe then I advise picking a better word for your argument.

 

Take that up with the dictionary. I didn't write it. I just used a word from it in a less known usage.

 

I always thought boycotting something was just no longer using their services or products.

 

It is and the act of boycotting itself isn't blackmail. Threatening a company like Wal-Mart with a boycott if they don't surrender $400,000 of their money to some individual is blackmail. There seems to be a few that want to nitpick the word I chose to describe the intent to use coercion to get Wal-Mart to drop their claim to their money.

[Dak]

"pay $x that you don't own or we will cause you > $x" == blackmail.

[Daecon]

It is and the act of boycotting itself isn't blackmail. Threatening a company like Wal-Mart with a boycott if they don't surrender $400,000 of their money to some individual is blackmail. There seems to be a few that want to nitpick the word I chose to describe the intent to use coercion to get Wal-Mart to drop their claim to their money.

 

Well that's just being inconsistent. Either stop shopping there or don't. Don't place some arbitrary condition on your continued custom there because that's just stupid.

 

Unless of course that condition is justified.

[drochaid]

I just clicked on the link to the definition in the Oxford dictionary in my post and that definition is certainly there. All I did was add a line break to my copy and paste. Are you saying the Oxford Dictionary is wrong?

 

It would seem I wasn't clear enough in my last post. The three definitions I provided are from the Oxford English Dictionary whereas I suspect your quotes were from one of the lesser variants, such as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

 

As ParanoiA pointed out, the second definition you provided is incredibly woolly and entirely unhelpful.. no doubt why it does not exist in the real OED. Boycotting is not blackmail .. it just isn't .. if it were, every company every boycotted would very quickly resort to legal action against the boycotters as blackmail is a criminal offence in most western countries.

[swansont]

I don't think we're at the level of delving into legal definitions here. I think the idea here is one of ethics, as in the ethical equivalent of blackmail. It's fairly obvious boycotts are legal.

 

 

You don't need any reason, good or bad, to not shop at a particular store. You can not shop at a store because you don't like their color scheme, or because you think their checkout clerks are ugly. An organized boycott is, in one sense, an advantage to a business, because they know what behavior is keeping customers out, and don't have to guess. They then get to decide whether the proposed change is cost-effective, or whether an ad campaign to spin (or unspin) the story is a better option, or maybe a third course of action is warranted.

[gcol]

I at first decided to vote no, but changed my mind when working through the reasons for my no. I came upon my usual stumbling block, the woolly understanding of the many words used, e.g. extortion, threats, coercion, etc. Too many to argue, and all subjective.

 

Then I realised that "illegal" is a general term that is capable of exact definition by the law of the land, even though it will vary between jurisdictions. Therefore it (boycott) has no universal legal meaning as to whether it constitutes blackmail.

 

Perhaps a group decision to cease using goods or services from a specific supplier could be harshly called a conspiracy, again having no common national definition.

 

Last point: There are the laws of the land, (man-made and subject to political whim), and there are natural laws. I have to bow to the man-made variety through threat of punishment, but I try to adhere to the natural variety through force of morals, ethics and conscience.

 

So still a don't know because of the old question "ah, that all depends on what you mean by......."

[doG]

Boycotting is not blackmail ..

 

I said that already. The threat of boycotting in order to coerce is blackmail....

[swansont]

I said that already. The threat of boycotting in order to coerce is blackmail....

 

How is this different from negotiating a lower price for a product because of the existence of competition?

[drochaid]

I don't think we're at the level of delving into legal definitions here. I think the idea here is one of ethics, as in the ethical equivalent of blackmail. It's fairly obvious boycotts are legal.

 

I think the thread would need to be clearly stated as an ethics discussion for that to be the case. The question was "Is boycotting blackmail?" rather than "Should boycotting be blackmail?". I'm responding on the basis of the question being "Is" and in that regard the legal definition is entirely relevant as it has been discussed and decided upon by a considerable number of people and those people, in different countries, have largely come to the same conclusion. In response to gcol pointing out that legality is "man-made and subject to political whim" well, yes, clearly, as is this discussion man-made and subject to personal whim.. that's rather the point, isn't it?

[gcol]

If boycotting is a form of blackmail, then it can be argued that governments can be blackmailed into enacting legislation by concerted action by special interest groups. Even the act of voting against a party, or the threat of a negative vote, can be construed as blackmail. In turn, governments do it and call it, for example, a trade embargo.

 

So I suggest that boycotts could never be illegal, because under different names, the practice oils the wheels of international trade and politics, and no sensible politician would enact legislation that may come back to bite them.

[Daecon]

Threats are dumb and lead to potential hypocrisy. That's why I don't like them.

 

I prefer promises.

[doG]

How is this different from negotiating a lower price for a product because of the existence of competition?

 

One is using coercion to force an unfavorable breach of contract. What's the point for them to enter such contracts at all if the public is just going to force them to surrender their contractual rights anyhow?