>>And yet the 'liberty minded' person in this case is the one imposing a government restriction upon what individuals and businesses might otherwise choose to do.
Where do you draw this conclusion from? What government restrictions do you believe liberty minded people are calling for?
>>Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence the debate actually comes down to discussion of which types of speech should and should have protections.
I am not sure what this is even referencing. I have read this line a few times and I am not sure what you are trying to convey
It sounds like this is a restatement of the grandparent ,you are talking about what a company should or should not do, vs what a government should or should not prohibit with the force of law.
A company choosing to fire someone for X speech is vastly different than a government protecting an employee from being fired, or forcing a company to fire someone for said speech
Government action is authoritarian by its very nature. I do not believe people should be fired from their jobs for their speech but at the same time I do not support government intervention in the free association of those businesses, that would have far worse consequences
>And of course who should be given stronger-than-average protections is also a matter of some debate
It should not be a debate at all, Equality under the law should be universal. This is one of the core problems today is we keep trying to fix past injustice with more injustice under the law
The only way to break the cycle is to make every individual the exact same under the law.
> What government restrictions do you believe liberty minded people are calling for?
People claiming that people shouldn't be sacked for expressing certain views also claim their actions are motivated by the imperative of protecting freedom of conscience and individuals' essential liberty. People firing people for expressing those views are often openly stating the belief those views are 'incorrect' and that enforcement action must be taken against those with incorrect views.
Hence my contention that reducing the debate to libertarian vs authoritarian is unhelpful, particularly when it leads to the position that everyone not equally committed to both upholding universities' rights to censor speech and abolishing Civil Rights Acts is authoritarian with a capital A.
>>People firing people for expressing those views are often openly stating the belief those views are 'incorrect' and that enforcement action must be taken against those with incorrect views.
No that is absolutely not the case, companies today are responding to the Mob not their own self determination on the issue.
Which is what I and others have a problem with, not the a company on their own, of their own free will choose to fire someone but because the mob demanded it or their head
I have to admit I'm even further from understanding your position now: companies should have the right to enforce absolute conformity on their employees and fire them for whatever arbitrary reason they want to, but consumers absolutely shouldn't have the right to boycott in the event they find extremely objectionable?
No no, they should have the right to, we as a society should just discourage people from exercising their agency in that regard.
That way no one needs to make laws to enforce conformity. It's just enforced by social norms. It's the speech version of Jordan Peterson's "enforced monogomy" concept.
Granted even in this sardonic explanation, I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole is supposed to go. Using your agency to protest <a bad act> is discouraged so we should use our agency to discourage the discouragement. But then we're just deciding that discouraging <a bad act> is itself a bad act. And so the whole thing is self-contradictory.
Where do you draw this conclusion from? What government restrictions do you believe liberty minded people are calling for?
>>Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence the debate actually comes down to discussion of which types of speech should and should have protections.
I am not sure what this is even referencing. I have read this line a few times and I am not sure what you are trying to convey
It sounds like this is a restatement of the grandparent ,you are talking about what a company should or should not do, vs what a government should or should not prohibit with the force of law.
A company choosing to fire someone for X speech is vastly different than a government protecting an employee from being fired, or forcing a company to fire someone for said speech
Government action is authoritarian by its very nature. I do not believe people should be fired from their jobs for their speech but at the same time I do not support government intervention in the free association of those businesses, that would have far worse consequences
>And of course who should be given stronger-than-average protections is also a matter of some debate
It should not be a debate at all, Equality under the law should be universal. This is one of the core problems today is we keep trying to fix past injustice with more injustice under the law
The only way to break the cycle is to make every individual the exact same under the law.
> Some people believe in restricting employers
Yes and those people are called Authoritarians