A private business if it is not beholding financially to anyone, they should be allowed to run that business as they see fit, within the law. They should not however be immune to societal backlash (boycotts). How would you do that without impinging on the free speech of those wishing to boycott.kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:24 amChairmanOfTheBoard wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:56 pmi think that's the same as what the Economist is saying- sometimes speech needs to take a back seat to other causes- this one being equality. it's not absolute; we all know that.holmes435 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:23 pm Freedom of speech is the ideal. But freedom of speech can lead to very bad people very bad ideas gaining traction (especially with the invention of the internet), and they use just a little bit of power as a lever to springboard into leadership. It's up to society to stop those ideas from spreading without limiting free speech. The question is, how do we accomplish that?
question then is whose ideas/speech are really the bad ones?
im less concerned with ideas than with actual speech. after all, how to regulate what people are thinking?
I'll take a swipe to keep the covo going.
I think the starting point is - asking - where do these ideas (that turn into unpopular speech) have the potential most impact and/or harm to others?
At a government-run (or sponsored) workplace or school? Certainly. I think everyone has the right to work/learn safely and not be persecuted.
In government administration? Of course. IMO, no one should be denied a basic right or something guaranteed to the general public because they say something unpopular or hold an unpopular belief.
During protests? This is where it gets tricky. I think the level of tolerence for free speech should be much higher during protests, But the tolerence for inciting and violence much lower. How is that possible? If people are formally protesting, whatever it is, their right to free speech should be unencumbered. Many problems occur when people protest another formal protest. How can you not allow protesting a protest if there is truly "free speech?" No clue!
At private businesses? Another tricky one, IMO. I feel like store owners/business owners have the right to run their businesses however they want. That means creating a business and culture however they deem fit and/or performing/providing/denying the work however they deem fit. But just because they can employ, hire and run a company how they see fit, doesn't mean they shouldn't be free from societal backlash (i.e: boycott or market forces) if their actions are deemed unacceptable/undesirable by society. Additionally, if you take gov't money/loans/subsidies or work on government contracts etc. for said business, you are now subject to the government requirements for culture etc. that I hinted at above...
If a business is taking dollars from some entity, grant, investment, etc., that business should be responsive to the "investing" entities positions. For instance, if a church takes dollars from the federal government, then it is not unreasonable for the federal government to impose "reasonable" rules on that church. Same for schools, charitable mission organizations, etc. Whether a church should be able to receive federal funds is a separate question. Definitely no if the funds are in support of the promulgation of that religion. If it is running a homeless shelter, it is not unreasonable for the federal government to require that the homeless shelter not be allowed to promulgate that religion or require that the homeless be church members, required to participate in church services, etc.