[morgante]

> "the right to free speak only protects you against the government"

I strongly agree with that statement, but I also strongly object to the ouster of Eich. An opinion on one does not imply an opinion on the other.

I support the right of the KKK to march through the streets, but that doesn't mean I should have to hire one of their members.

[humanrebar]

> I support the right of the KKK to march through the streets, but that doesn't mean I should have to hire one of their members.

That's not the analogy. It's contrived, but to stick with the theme of white racists, is it ethical (legality aside) for a board full of clansmen to fire a CEO that donated to the ADL? To keep it simple, let's say the CEO is not Jewish, but does financially support the ADL.

[morgante]

> That's not the analogy.

I was making an oblique reference to a rather famous free speech case. [0]

> is it ethical (legality aside) for a board full of clansmen to fire a CEO that donated to the ADL?

No, but I have a hard time finding anything clansmen do ethical. If your ideology is motivated by bigotry, that's the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

[humanrebar]

I'm familiar to the case. My point was that I don't find it particularly analogous to the Eich case. Having no relationship to some people who walk down the street occasionally is substantially different than actually having to be professionally associated with someone and practice tolerance on a regular basis. I'd also argue that free speech should be protected in both cases (socially if not legally).

> If your ideology is motivated by bigotry, that's the problem.

I agree. I'm not sure corporate leaders need legal protection. Perhaps. But the right to publicly assemble and speak absolutely needs legal protection. That's why I was trying to draw another analogy. To explore the difference between the Eich and Skokie incidents.

[morgante]

> My point was that I don't find it particularly analogous to the Eich case.

I think there's been a miscommunication, because neither do I.

They're fundamentally different cases, in that I think the NSDAP should have the legal right to march but they can absolutely be punished socially.

Likewise, I think what happened to Eich was perfectly legal but not necessarily moral. They're not the same and that was my point: invoking "free speech" as a Constitutional right has no bearing on the Eich case.

[digbyloftus]

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? They can fire him for any or no reason and it's completely ethical. They don't owe him employment.

[humanrebar]

> They can fire him for any or no reason and it's completely ethical.

You must have a different definition of ethics than the rest of us do. I'm having a hard time reconciling that opinion with a definition of "ethical" that actually means anything, to be honest. Would you care to provide a definition?