> I am surprised by your comment that there is no call for a boycott. Once
> a sponsor chooses not to wholly support an institution, its selectivity
> imposes a form of censorship upon the institution ... Your message
> however, implies Dial was never specifically involved with the
> exhibition itself, but just as a general Museum sponsor. Is this correct?
>
First:  I'm not defending Dial's behavior.

Second:  Again, according to the Museum itself, Dial was not specifically
involved with the exhibition.

Third:  We don't have a right to Dial's money; our rights
are not abridged if they choose not to support us; and if they want
to tell us what to do with their money (or not do), that's their right
too.  Their behavior may be boorish, but it's not censorship, unless
you're prepared to say that market forces in general consitute
censorship.  I'm not quite prepared to go that far.

Andy Finch
AAM Government Affairs
[log in to unmask]
usual disclaimers