“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.”
I am arguing for an expanded interpretation of the 1st amendment to protect freedom of speech from the crazed leftists determined to destroy the lives of those they disagree with. We are seeing that can have just as chilling an effect on freedom of speech as govt repression. Yes the govt can throw you in jail (and the left now proposes criminalizing speech they disagree with), but losing your job and property due to public pressure on your employer is also a form of repression designed to suppress opposition and freedom of expression. Govt repression and mob repression of freedom of speech has the same result. Private organizations are all too willing to roll over and punish and employee due to pressure from social media. This was not a problem in the past but the left now prowls public information like the gestapo looking for evidence of “hate” like campaign contributions or donations to “right wing” organizations. The effect is to suppress donations to such groups for fear of losing your job.
“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.”
A counter demonstration is very different from the concerted effort to destroy people’s lives. People opposed the Nazi/Klan but acknowledged their right to their opinion. That has changed.
“The problem is Sterling’s views are public.”
Not by his own actions, but by illegal actions. If a man cannot express his opinions in his own home without them becoming public there is no privacy. Clearly Sterling did not expect that his views to become public.
“No government official empowered by the awesome might of the state is seeking to suppress Mr. Sterling’s free speech.”
Debatable but such proposals are currently being floated in the media regarding criminalizing speech. Also recent events have shown us that the govt is not the only group seeking to suppress speech from which we need protection.
“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.”
Technically I agree with you however I am seeking to expand free speech protections which is why I added the need to show harm. IMO your employer should not be able to fire you because you solely because you disagree with him, just like he cannot refuse to hire you because of race. If my employer is a rabid OBozo supporter and finds out I voted Romney, by your definition that is grounds for dismissal. You can destroy my career simply because you found out I donated money to a candidate you dislike. An employer should only be able to fire you for performance issues, not for political disagreements. Freedom of speech is a fundamental constitutional right that should be protected from corporate douchebags in addition to govt ones.
“There is nothing more American... or Constitutional.” Than firing someone for their political beliefs? That has never been an American value.
“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.”
Are you kidding? There are libraries full of govt regulations telling you what you must do with your property or business, from what type of people you hire, to what benefits and pay you give etc. We have been on a dangerous path a long time and its getting worse by the day.
“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.”
To reiterate- I understand the current situation and that actions have consequences. I am arguing that things should change in favor of more protections due to the current threat to free speech and to political expression from rabid leftists pressuring private entities to destroy their opposition. A threat I see as potentially becoming as great as that from govt repression of this right.
“You can destroy my career simply because you found out I donated money to a candidate you dislike. An employer should only be able to fire you for performance issues, not for political disagreements. Freedom of speech is a fundamental constitutional right that should be protected from corporate douchebags in addition to govt ones.”
The right to hire and fire at will is a property right. And lots of people who carry a torch for free speech fail to grasp that without the sacrosanct right of property, there is no free speech. And speech rights, by the way, are a subset of property rights. Think about it.
It’s a business owner’s absolute right to hire — pay his own property — to whomever he may wish for any reason. Or not. He doesn’t have to employ you if you swear in front of his wife. He doesn’t have to employ you if you wear a purple shirt and he hates purple. He doesn’t have to employ you if he doesn’t like you, and he may not like you if you voted for Romney.
It is firmly established case law that giving money to a politician is free speech. It is just as firmly established that no one can be forced to donate to causes with which they disagree. The Obama-supporting employer doesn’t support your candidate, so no more money from him to your cause — that is protected speech and the free exercise of property rights.
“I am arguing that things should change in favor of more protections due to the current threat to free speech and to political expression from rabid leftists pressuring private entities to destroy their opposition.”
So you want the government to get involved, guys with guns and jails, policing speech between citizens. Is that really what you want? The cure is worse than the disease. When a regime like the one in charge now is in power, you think they’re going to help or hurt people who think like you?