I don't understand the question. — Michael

Someone has an opinion I don't like. Why or how should that affect me?

Suppose that some organized team runs a campaign in our neighborhood, anti-semitism, Holocaust-denial, standing on a soap-box, perhaps going door-to-door passing out flyers, whatever.
What would be the right thing to do?
Tell them to "grow a heart", to get lost, call the cops, ...
(This sort of thing can get increasingly problematic the younger the listeners.)
If someone were to do that in our house, then we might get into a quarrel/skirmish, or we might show them the door, which sooort of is what Amazon (and Apple, Twitter, Facebook) has done, to return to Peter's article.
Consequently, let's just say they'd be abusing freedom, that their particular speech isn't worth protecting ( :up:), more like the opposite.
That's not due to being against free speech.
The slippery slope () is what makes it non-trivial.

I don't understand the question. — Michael

Someone has an opinion I don't like. Why or how should that affect me? — Tzeentch

You're telling me that you wish for people to lose their jobs and their right to free speech because they hold opinions you don't like, but you cannot even tell me why their private opinions should matter to you?

You're telling me that you wish for people to lose their jobs and their right to free speech because they hold opinions you don't like — Tzeentch

They don't lose their right to free speech.

I'm saying that an employer ought be allowed to fire their employee for being a Nazi and that Twitter ought be allowed to suspend accounts that violate their terms of service.

You're dodging the question.

but you cannot even tell me why their private opinions should matter to you? — Tzeentch

I've never said that private opinions should matter to me so your question is irrelevant.

That directly contradicts your desire to see people with private opinions you dislike unemployed and censored.

That directly contradicts your desire to see people with private opinions you dislike unemployed and censored. — Tzeentch

How do you get from "employers ought be allowed to fire people for expressing certain kinds of opinions, like Nazism" to "other people's private opinions should matter to you and I want people with private opinions I dislike to be unemployed and censored"?

You believe opinions matter enough for people to be fired and censored over them. That much is obvious or you wouldn't be espousing these ideas.

The question you refuse to answer is why these opinions matter so much to you.

You believe opinions matter enough for people to be fired and censored over them. — Tzeentch

I believe that public expressions of a person's opinions does matter to people. Nowhere have I said that private opinions should matter.

I also believe that an employer ought have the right to fire people for expressing certain kinds of opinions, like Nazism, and that Twitter ought be allowed to suspend accounts if they violate their terms of service. Nowhere have I said that it ought be illegal for Nazism to be expressed or for Twitter's terms of service to be violated.

I believe that public expressions of a person's opinions does matter to people. — Michael

I'm sure they matter to people, but why?

Note that I've already offered you a way out, in suggesting that certain opinions may lead to problematic behavior which could be a grounds for firing someone. (In which case it would be the behavior and not the opinion that is the critical factor)

But instead you insist that the act of having an opinion is sufficient grounds for censorship and robbing someone of their livelihood.

That begs the question why.

I'm sure they matter to people, but why? — Tzeentch

Ask them, I'm not an authority on other people's psychology.

Note that I've already offered you a way out, in suggesting that certain opinions may lead to problematic behavior which could be a grounds for firing someone. (In which case it would be the behavior and not the opinion that is the critical factor) — Tzeentch

I don't need a "way out".

But instead you insist that the act of having an opinion is sufficient grounds for censorship and robbing someone of their livelihood. — Tzeentch

No, the act of expressing that opinion is sufficient grounds for being fired or having one's social media account suspended. I'm not suggesting that people be physically prevented from expressing their opinion or imprisoned or fined.

Here's a question for "free speech absolutists": should us moderators be allowed to ban accounts that only post in some other language than English?

No, the act of expressing that opinion is sufficient grounds for being fired or having one's social media account suspended. — Michael

That doesn't seem to be what you're arguing at all.

Lets say you overhear your employee during a private phone conversation and you find out they have an opinion you strongly dislike.

Should you now fire them?

I don't need a "way out". — Michael

Clearly you do.

Lets say you're working hard trying to provide for your family, but then news reaches my ears you have some funny ideas about freedom of expression.

Should I now fire you because I dislike your opinions?

.

Lets say you overhear your employee during a private phone conversation and you find out they have an opinion you strongly dislike.

Should you now fire them? — Tzeentch

I'm not saying that they should fire them. I'm saying that (depending on the opinion) they have the right to fire them.

If they express the opinion that black people are inferior to white people and ought not have the same legal rights, then you, possibly a black man, ought be allowed to terminate their employment. You're not obligated to continue working with and paying a racist, as you are suggesting.

Should I now fire you because I dislike your opinions? — Tzeentch

Again, I'm not saying that you should fire me, I'm saying that, as my employer, you have the right to fire me. Although, as above, that depends on the opinion. It is acceptable to fire me for expressing the opinion that black people are inferior to white people but maybe not acceptable to fire me for expressing the opinion that Thai food is nicer than Spanish food.

I'm not saying that they should fire them. I'm saying that (depending on the opinion) they have the right to fire them. — Michael

Whether they have the right or not is a legal matter and depends entirely on where one lives and what the terms of contract are.

I'm not saying that they should fire them. — Michael

Then what are you saying people should do? And why?

If they express the opinion that black people are inferior to white people and ought not have the same legal rights, then you, possibly a black man, ought be allowed to terminate their employment. — Michael

Why should someone else's ignorance bother me so, assuming all they do is hold an ignorant opinion?

Although, as above, that depends on the opinion. — Michael

And who should be the arbiter of this?

People don't exactly have a shining track record when it comes to determining what is "extreme" and what is "reasonable".

Whether they have the right or not is a legal matter and depends entirely on where one lives and what the terms of contract are. — Tzeentch

We're not talking about legal rights but ethical(?) rights. The argument often made is that we have a "natural" right to speech and so laws against speech are wrong. My claim is that we have a "natural" right to fire people for expressing certain kinds of opinions.

Then what are you saying people should do? — Tzeentch

I'm not saying people should do anything.

Why should someone else's ignorance bother me so, assuming all they do is hold an ignorant opinion? — Tzeentch

Again, I'm not an authority on other people's psychology. If it doesn't bother you then don't fire them. But if it bothers another employer then they have the right to fire their employee.

And who should be the arbiter of this?

People don't exactly have a shining track record when it comes to determining what is "extreme" and what is "reasonable". — Tzeentch

Us. We're the arbiter of everything. Who decided that we have the right to free speech in the first place? That we sometimes make mistakes isn't that we shouldn't make any kind of judgement at all.

We can look to the law for an example. The court is presented with these types of issues all the time.

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If a person is caught lying on the witness stand, they can be punished by law for perjury. That is clearly the government restricting a person's "free speech".

Lies seem to be extremism, at least in court. If a business lies to customer's about its product, they can also be legally liable. But white lies to your wife or husband? They seem fine. If you yell "Fire!" in a theater and people rush out and get hurt, that also doesn't seem protected. I suppose its about the risk and cost to people that certain lies cause which would break the idea of "free speech".

My claim is that we have a "natural" right to fire people for expressing certain kinds of opinions. — Michael

I don't know what such a "natural right" would be based on. Some sort of right not to be offended by someone else? I'd wholeheartedly disagree with that.

And these certain kinds of opinions just so happen to be views you disagree with also? If roles were reversed, would you feel the same way, or does it only apply when you agree with what is deemed reasonable and what isn't?

Us. We're the arbiter of everything. [...] That we sometimes make mistakes isn't that we shouldn't make any kind of judgement at all. — Michael

Mankind's history is near entirely comprised of unreasonable lapses of moral judgement.

Ironically, the fact that at one point certain enlightened individuals understood the value of free speech is one of few exceptions to an atrocious track record that doesn't suggest even the slightest ability to responsibly wield power of any kind, let alone power over fundamental human rights.

You wouldn't let a toddler play with a scalpel.

I don't know what such a "natural right" would be based on. Some sort of right not to be offended by someone else? — Tzeentch

The right to not be required to accept another person's labour and the right to not be required to give money to another person.

And these certain kinds of opinions just so happen to be views you disagree with also? — Tzeentch

No, the general principle is:

An employer has the right to fire an employee for expressing morally reprehensible opinions

I then apply this principle to specific cases:

Racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-semitism are morally reprehensible

Therefore, an employer has the right to fire an employee for expressing racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or anti-semitic opinions

Do you disagree with one or both of the premises?

Such interactions between individuals are usually written down in a contract, and includes what is expected of both parties.

Why would your right not to be offended take precedence over contractual obligations?

No, the general principle is:

Premise 1: An employer has the right to fire an employee for expressing morally reprehensible opinions

I then apply this principle to the more specific case:

Premise 2: Racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-semitism are morally reprehensible
Conclusion: An employer has the right to fire an employee for expressing racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-semitic opinions

Which of premise(s) do you disagree with? — Michael

Premise 1, obviously.

And while I would agree with premise 2, I wouldn't trust anyone with the power to decide what is considered racist, sexist or what have you. My moral opinions I hold to guide my own behavior, and I don't expect or desire others to follow it, except of their own volition.

Is "I like Hitler" a racist, homophobic or anti-semetic remark? Yet I'm sure such a remark would incur your wrath as an employer, would it not?

Such interactions between individuals are usually written down in a contract, and includes what is expected of both parties.

Why would your right not to be offended take precedence over contractual obligations? — Tzeentch

As I have mentioned before, for the sake of argument it is legal to fire the employee for expressing such an opinion. We're not discussing legality here.

Premise 1, obviously. — Tzeentch

So am I obligated to accept labour from (and compensate accordingly) someone who expresses morally reprehensible opinions? Do I not have the right to choose who works for me?

Do I not have the right to choose who works for me? — Michael

Of course you do. You exercise that right by being able to sign contracts with whoever you like, and come to a mutual agreement about the terms of that contract.

If you happen to contract somebody who turns out to be a bit of a nutcase; tough luck! That's down to you being a poor judge of character or being careless with the terms of contract, and unless they do something illegal or breach the contract, I'd say you're morally (and in a lot of cases legally) obliged to uphold your end of the deal.

Do I not have the right to choose who works for me? — Michael

In many cases, you don't because you do not have the right to refuse employment to someone on the grounds of race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other of a number of protected characteristics. The point, with regards to terminating employment on the grounds of voiced opinion, cannot be argued on the basis of a purported freedom to employ and fire whomever one feels so inclined to employ/fire without also asserting that such legislation ought be revoked.

We already restrict who an employer can refuse to hire (or fire) to protect potential employees from unfair discrimination, at least some of which are opinions (religion, for example) not only unavoidable characteristics like race.

So if we've already conceded that people's holding, and legitimate voicing, of certain opinions can be a protected characteristic in equality law, then the only outstanding matter is that of which opinions ought to benefit from such protection - ie which opinions is it considered legitimate to hold (in opposition to your employer, such that they are prevented from using them against your employment) and which it is not.

Specifically on the question of firing people for expressing certain opinions, then, the argument is over whether a new opinion ought be part of the list of protected opinions, or whether an existing protected opinion really ought not be on the list.

Of course you do. You exercise that right by being able to sign contracts with whoever you like, and come to a mutual agreement about the terms of that contract.

If you happen to contract somebody who turns out to be a bit of a nutcase; tough luck! That's down to you being a poor judge of character or being careless with the terms of contract, and unless they do something illegal or breach the contract, I'd say you're morally (and in a lot of cases legally) obliged to uphold your end of the deal. — Tzeentch

Many contracts include provisions regarding conduct, and social media companies include terms of service for the same. So I assume you accept that Twitter can suspend accounts for saying such things as "all Muslims are terrorists" given that their terms of service explicitly prohibit such speech?

I would add a further claim such as:

It is acceptable to refuse to hire someone for expressing morally reprehensible opinions

And of course there are other acceptable reasons for refusing to hire someone (demanding too high a salary, not being capable, there not being a job opening, etc.), with things such as gender, sexuality, and religious affiliation not satisfying any such reason (except in special cases).

So you're right to call out my overgeneralization.

For normal companies I'd say yes. But social media like Twitter hold a special, near monopolistic place in public discourse and should in my opinion be regarded as a public forum in the legal sense, and thus the right to freedom of speech should be observed especially.

But social media like Twitter hold a special, near monopolistic place in public discourse and should in my opinion be regarded as a public forum in the legal sense, — Tzeentch

So I guess their expenses should be paid for by taxes? Although by which country? It's headquarters are in the USA, so I guess it's American taxpayers who should foot the bill, but then there's global access to it, so maybe it needs to come out of the UN's budget?

Or alternatively start up a new social media company that allows more freedom in what you can say, and try to compete against Twitter and let the free market decide. I think there's something called Parlor that's trying to do that. If people want to listen to what you have to say then they can use that, and if not they can stay on Twitter.