““Until very recently expressing an unpopular opinion like Sterling did WAS considered to fall under free speech.” “
“Please cite an example.”
Throughout the last 60 years people with unpopular opinions like the Klan or the Nazis were allowed to march even though most people found their views reprehensible. No one tried to destroy the lives of clerks or judges who approved the permits or even the marchers themselves. The predominant attitude was that they had freedom of speech and had the right to use public facilities to express their opinions. The same is true of the antiwar hippie scum or black panthers, etc. No one sought to deny them their free speech or the right to speak on campuses. Contrast that with the current environment where people with majority opinions are banned from campus, threatened with violence or simply ostracized and ridiculed.
“Would you suggest that studio bosses who fled the anti-semitism, hunger, and terror of turn-of-the-century Europe be forced to subsidize the advocacy of politics they despised with a paycheck?”
Just like people are not able to discriminate hiring or renting apts on the basis of race, I would suggest not being able to discriminate hiring on the basis of political opinion. That means if a person does their job and does not publically express views counter to their job position, then it is no one’s business but their own. For example if I work for a fracking company I cant publically advocate banning fracking. However, if I want to send money to an anti-fracking group or march in a rally that would be protected (unless it can be shown that by that action the business was harmed).
“NBA team owners are behaving exactly like those mid-20th century studio heads. People who promulgate the views this guy holds are bad for business. He’s a black eye on their industry. They don’t want to work with him. And no government strong-arm tactics should force them to.”
IMO a person should not have their property or livelihood taken away based on an illegally recorded and released private conversation. I also think the “outrage” of the other owners is solely based on fear of the race hustler mob. In the case of the NBA the mob will impact business and profits so they may be justified in getting rid of Sterling, however I would like to see the leaker sued for any losses or fines he must pay and prosecution for an illegal wiretap, privacy invasion and malicious intent.
“The free market of ideas impacting the free market of the economy is what’s happening here. And it’s the way America is supposed to work.”
Here is where we really disagree. In most cases the business is not impacted by an employee or associate’s opinion and so should not be able to punish them without evidence that it caused harm. And I especially disagree with the proposition that its OK for Americans to be afraid to express their opinions and be forced into silence for the sake of political correctness, or to be persecuted by intolerant leftist mobs.
“Throughout the last 60 years people with unpopular opinions like the Klan or the Nazis were allowed to march even though most people found their views reprehensible.”
False analogy. You’re conflating government suppression of ideas at gunpoint with private individuals who are absolutely free in a free market economy and free market of ideas to express their disagreement with the ideas Sterling holds, using their checkbooks and their mouths. They don’t want to work with a racist. Please cite in the Constitution where it says they’re not free to fire someone for being a racist.
“No one tried to destroy the lives of clerks or judges who approved the permits or even the marchers themselves.”
Really? No one harassed the Nazi marchers? They paid no price in the court of public opinion for their evil ideas? People welcome Nazis into the community and give them great jobs? Doubt it.
“The predominant attitude was that they had freedom of speech and had the right to use public facilities to express their opinions. The same is true of the antiwar hippie scum or black panthers, etc. No one sought to deny them their free speech or the right to speak on campuses.”
No government official empowered by the awesome might of the state is seeking to suppress Mr. Sterling’s free speech. He is free to espouse his views wherever he wishes. But he has butted up against his business partners who disagree with him and are voting him out. They don’t want to work with a racist. That’s their right.
“Contrast that with the current environment where people with majority opinions are banned from campus, threatened with violence or simply ostracized and ridiculed.”
You’ve made one point I will concede: banning speech on the campuses of public universities (private schools should be free to make their own rules) or the Federal government setting up “speech zones” is a huge intrusion on the First Amendment. None of this has anything to do with Sterling.
“That means if a person does their job and does not publically express views counter to their job position, then it is no one’s business but their own.”
The problem is Sterling’s views are public.
“For example if I work for a fracking company I cant publically advocate banning fracking. However, if I want to send money to an anti-fracking group or march in a rally that would be protected (unless it can be shown that by that action the business was harmed).”
I’m pretty sure marching in public is advocacy. And if I owned the fracking company, I would fire you for your ideas. You exercised your freedom of speech; now I’m exercising my right to do what I like with my private property. Which is not give it to you. Because I disagree with your ideas. There is nothing more American... or Constitutional.
“IMO a person should not have their property or livelihood taken away based on an illegally recorded and released private conversation.”
That is certainly true in a government court. But NBA owners are not a judicial body, and under no obligation to consider how or why his ideas were made public. They’re out there. He said it. He is a racist. They’re free to fire him.
” I also think the “outrage” of the other owners is solely based on fear of the race hustler mob. “
So what?
“In the case of the NBA the mob will impact business and profits so they may be justified in getting rid of Sterling”
Um, YEAH. This is my point. Why are we arguing?
“In most cases the business is not impacted by an employee or associate’s opinion and so should not be able to punish them without evidence that it caused harm.”
Why does there have to “evidence that it caused harm?” And who decides the evidence? The GOVERNMENT?! It’s my business, my property, and I can do whatever I like with my property. The moment someone comes along — with guns — to tell me what I can and can’t do with my property — because you don’t like my reasons — we’re on a dangerous path.
“And I especially disagree with the proposition that its OK for Americans to be afraid to express their opinions and be forced into silence for the sake of political correctness, or to be persecuted by intolerant leftist mobs.”
Once again, are you conflating government and private business? You should never be afraid to express your opinions for fear of government, but you absolutely need to think twice about what you say about abortion rights if you work at Planned Parenthood. Why is this such a hard concept? People who pay you money can police your speech. They can fire you if they don’t like what you say. There’s nothing sinister or un-American about it.
The government can’t put anyone in jail for being a racist, but God help us if they can put me in jail for firing you for being a racist. Or make me hire you against my will.