Dilbert author, Scott Adams, recently announced he would be blogging less and would no longer post about controversial topics. 

His rationale was that blogging produced little in tangible income but negative reaction to his controversial blogs had the potential to tangibly decrease his income from lost readership.

I can relate to that. I often will get an email from someone saying they'll never buy a product I'm associated with because I've offended them with one of my blogs.

But at the same time, I support people's right to talk with their dollars. If someone chooses not to read Dilbert anymore or buy something I make because we offended that person, that's their right.

To be clear: I think it's their right. I also think that the threshold for this sort of thing falls into the realm of idiocy pretty quickly.

There is a big difference, for instance, between a Hollywood celebrity making clueless remarks on politics that gets covered in the general media and someone posting on their own site. 

On the one hand, we create the celebrities in the first place and when they abuse their celebrity by making political statements designed to get media coverage then there's an inherent desire for people to reduce that person's celebrity.

By contrast, when I write about how I want to eat baby seals, I am writing it on my own blog that people voluntarily come and visit. Someone's voluntary purchase of some product I was involved in did not get redirected into having my views forced upon the world. 

Similarly, Scott Adams isn't using his fame to espouse particular points of view. He is writing it on his Typepad.com blog that people choose to visit.

That's why I don't have a problem with Rosie O'Donald posting on her blog site but had a big problem with her espousing her political opinions on The View.

If I started putting my controversial opinions into my products, then that would be pretty obnoxious.  But I don't do that.  I don't think Scott Adams does that either.

In short, I support someone's right to boycott a product because of the views of the creator but there's also a pretty good chance that the boycotter is an idiot who no one would want as a customer anyway.