IMO, no, you are NOT a hypocrite for choosing to not associate or do business with LEGO.
You ARE a hypocrite for presuming Lego doesn't have the right to freely dissociate from the
Daily Mail, in pursuit of Lego's own interests (public image, f'rinstance.) Noone should be forced or coerced into an association they don't want, for whatever reason they don't want it. Likewise, you ARE a hypocrite for presuming Lego
doesn't have the right to stand with others with a clear, stated purpose with which you don't agree. What's the point of free speech if we're all supposed to say the same thing?
Are
you the "communist hate group" here? Or are you smashing presses, right now? Does it bother you when others express the same rights, but at purposes counter to your own? Is civility beyond the scope of your "perfect world" view? If you are, if it does, if it is, you've gone beyond hypocrite, and on to zealot.
Quote:Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, a leading campaigner for Brexit, last night criticised Lego’s decision as an attempt to influence the free press. He said: “Lego can place advertising where they wish. But with the free press no company should expect their advertisements to influence a newspaper’s editorial content or line."
Really, Bridgen? Sadly, Bridgen (also) failed to recognize that
the advertising entity's image reputation and business can be damaged through association by the editorial brand of a paper. The
Daily Mail is perfectly free to find other companies comfortable with their editorial brand,
it just won't be Lego. And if the
Daily Mail believes what Lego did was in violation of their limited-run legal agreement (i.e. contract, which I have since read expired at term), they are more than capable of bringing in
real lawyers.
I'm just off-put by the idea that Lego didn't investigate better before entering into the limited-run deal in the first place; it isn't like the
Daily Mail's brand changed radically over Brexit. Did it?