The latest boycott: Hallmark

I have seen it far too many times. Someone with ties to a company deviates from the views of the Democrats, and the Democrats insist in boycotting. They generally don't follow through on their threats, but they have clearly proven intolerance of alternative viewpoints.


The latest boycott threats have been aimed at the Hallmark Channel. Apparently, some fringe group complained about a commercial that featured a lesbian kiss. Hallmark responded by pulling the ad.

It's pretty clear that this is not the same as the other calls for boycotting that I have criticized, although I still prefer that nobody follows through on these threats. The biggest difference is that the company itself was involved. This was not an investor who prefers Trump over socialism. This was a business decision made by Hallmark.

Hallmark has the right to decide which commercials they are willing to show. They have the right to base these decisions off their audience base. Hallmark appeals primarily to conservatives, who are more likely to be turned off by this form of advertising. By contrast, not many people threatening to boycott Hallmark watch the channel to begin with. Hallmark should feel no obligation to pander to people who won't watch. That said, I'm sure they had at least some actual viewers who feel that Hallmark's decision was unacceptable. In some ways, Hallmark's decision made sense, but that doesn't make it right.

The bottom line on this issue is that calls to boycott Hallmark stemmed from actions from Hallmark instead of the personal life of an investor. A boycott makes a lot more sense in this situation. I might have even defended individuals who followed through on a boycott if it weren't for one key detail. Hallmark has already reversed its policy. The very reason used to justify a boycott is no longer valid.