Freedom of Speech is a cherished right for liberty-loving people, for many reasons. Without free speech and an unfettered flow of ideas and information, how can bad ideas be exposed and good ideas promoted?
The US Constitution guarantees free speech in the First Amendment, but that freedom has been under attack. The loophole is, the Constitution prohibits the government from suppressing speech, but private businesses can. Especially during the dark days surrounding Covid and the bizarre 2020 election, many realized the flow of information in our nation and world was seriously out of whack. Countless had their social media accounts closed or were put into “time out” for sharing information that questioned the dominant narratives.
Many portray this as “the left censoring the right,” and some Democrats probably take private comfort in that. However, many prominent thinkers on the left wing of the spectrum, like Naomi Wolf and Matt Taibbi, found themselves silenced also. This led many to believe the censorship was actually “the establishment” silencing everyone who questioned the dominant narratives.
The explosive release of The Twitter Files exposed countless examples of US government agencies and employees reporting certain Twitter users, to have them throttled or silenced. Simply put, since government bureaucrats couldn’t legally silence speech, they “outsourced” the dirty work to Big Tech, which evidence shows was overall willing to do it.
The only way we know about these outrages is because Elon Musk later bought Twitter and brought it all to light. No doubt, Facebook and Google engaged in censorship as well.
Imagine the heartbreak if not economic ruin for a content creator who invested years building an audience and brand, only to have his or her platform shut down for the vague “crime” of “violating community standards.”
For the record, the Communist Party of China (CCP) has been doing the same to their social media users for years. In this way, China is not becoming more like the West, but the West is becoming more like Communist China!
When many became disgusted with the censorship on YouTube (which is owned by Google), some users switched to Rumble, an alternative platform that seeks to protect free speech.
(Entrepreneur Chris Pavlovski founded Rumble in 2013 as a place for small content creators to share their videos because he believed YouTube was prioritizing big influencers over independent content creators.)
In an Aug. 10 post, Pavlovski gave this defense of open dialogue: “Free speech, where the process creates dialogue and debate, leads to truth and magnificent outcomes. History has shown, what is told to be true one day can be different the next day. Speech fixes this. Galileo is one example. Women’s rights is another. Civil rights is another.”
Dunkin Donut’ slogan is “America runs on Dunkin,” just as the free market runs on advertising dollars.
So, when Pavlovski recently learned Dunkin Donuts was refusing to buy ads on Rumble, he took that as an economic attack and discrimination against the roughly one-half of the US population that is conservative-oriented.
Here is part of the email from Dunkin Donuts refusing to advertise on a platform with “right-wing culture.”
Pavlovski asked for the company to reconsider, so with Dunkin Donuts essentially boycotting Rumble by refusing to buy advertising, he in turn launched his counter-boycott with this video.
On Aug. 14 Pavlovski posted, “I waited on releasing this video, hoping for an apology or action from @dunkindonuts. Nothing but crickets.”
“So, I trashed all my Dunkin Donuts.”
The Roanoke Star emailed Dunkin Donuts corporate headquarters asking for any statement and to verify if these stories were true, but no response was ever received.
Although Dunkin Donuts has the highest profile in the boycott, the entire Inspire brand refused to advertise on Rumble, thus these other chains have “inspired” a boycott as well: Arby’s, Baskin-Robbins, Buffalo Wild Wings, Jimmy John’s, and SONIC.
There are many examples of big corporations taking political or social stances that offend large swaths of their customer base. In some cases protest boycotts fizzle, but in the case of Bud Light, its once-dominant standing in the beer market was eviscerated.
Why can’t we have businesses that focus on providing excellent goods and services at a fair price, without a “side helping” of politics?
–Scott Dreyer