[cperciva]

how "bad" a person considers Trump and by proxy Trump supporters

Stop right there. There is a constitutionally protected right to support a political candidate. You should not be punishing someone for exercising their constitutionally protected rights; the fact that a candidate is reprehensible does not justify exercising collective punishment against his supporters.

At the extreme end if an employee was fired for supporting literal Nazis would anybody kick up a fuss? Not likely.

I don't know if there is a National Socialist party in the USA, but if there was then I don't think anyone should be fired for supporting their political activities.

Of course, if a National Socialist party included a paramilitary wing which was carrying out violent attacks on political enemies, supporting them would no longer be a matter of supporting a political organization; it would be supporting a criminal organization, which is certainly not a constitutionally protected right.

[int_19h]

>> Stop right there. There is a constitutionally protected right to support a political candidate. You should not be punishing someone for exercising their constitutionally protected rights

First Amendment is a constitutionally protected right. It is perfectly legal to say something "all Jews should be gassed" at a public rally. Do you believe that such a speech should have no consequences whatsoever?

We're not talking about laws here, note. No-one is saying that we should jail those people or fine them. We're talking about private actions - ostracism, boycott, and other forms of (ironically) exercising one's individual freedom of speech and of association.

[cperciva]

Do you believe that such a speech should have no consequences whatsoever?

Of course not. We should absolutely hold Trump responsible for what he says. The disagreement here is whether we should hold Trump supporters responsible for what Trump says.

(And I'm not sure if saying "all Jews should be gassed" is legal; in Canada it would probably fall under hate speech laws on the basis of inciting violence, but the USA has stronger protection of free speech rights. Per Brandenburg, it may be that "all Jews should be gassed" would be legal but "we should beat up the Jews" wouldn't, in that the latter advocates more imminent violence.)

[int_19h]

I'm pretty sure it would be legal in US. Something like "let's go gas some Jews" would be getting into the imminence territory, but the blanket statement of desire is protected speech.

As for your main point; I think that saying that we're holding Trump supporters responsible for what he says is not really correct. We're holding them responsible for what they say by the act of supporting him and/or his platform.

And the platform is always a thing under consideration. Even someone who's supporting Trump because "Hillary is worse" is still making a relative comparison between his platform and hers, which is a political statement - and I don't see why they should get a pass on being responsible for that statement and its implications.

It all becomes a lot less ambiguous if you pick some specific thing instead of discussing it in abstract, and spell out all the consequences in full. Say, I know quite a few people who are going to vote for Trump for the sole reason that they consider him better on gun rights. But when you account for his "law & order" dogwhistling, and unpack it, what they're really saying then is, "my right to own a semi-automatic firearm is more important than this black dude's right to be treated with dignity by the police and the courts". Some people actually find it acceptable even when worded that way, but I'm not one of them.

[baddox]

Out of curiosity, can you explain why you think there is a constitutionally protected right to support a political candidate and no such right to support a criminal organization (assuming by "support" you mean simply voicing support and not actually funding or committing crimes yourself)? It sounds good to me, but I can't think of where the constitution actually says that.

Of course, the real problem I have with your comment is that you say "collective punishment" is not justified. I'm not so sure I agree. I have no problem with collective action like boycotts, even if the boycott is in response to a perfectly legal action. This is just basic economic freedom and freedom of association. Perhaps you're speaking specifically about terminating someone's employment, which does have some specific legal protections.

[stillsut]

Milton Firedman's most famous work is Capitalism and Freedom and yet within that work, he completely rejects Hollywood blacklists (or "boycotts" if you prefer). If you consider his main point is that under communism, people are un-free, it seems odd that he would sympathize with avowed members of American communist party, who would ultimately like to bring communism to the US, and in Friedman's eyes, result in societal catastrophe. Doubly so given the power of persuasion that Hollywood writers wield. So why does he reject the ability of studio execs to simply exercise their freedom of association, and not contract with blacklisted writers?

The problem in Friedman's eyes is that this boycott reduces to collusion. And under collusion, the benfits of free market dry up: for example, in the free market you can shop your script, no matter who you are, and if your product is good, you could make a living out of it. When firms collude to establish acceptable political beleifs as a pre-condition to an economic exchange, you have reduced the economic freedom of everyone who is not wealthy enough to establish a movie studio for themselves. In effect, you have by-passed democracy ("one person, one vote") and moved to [benevolent] oligarchy ("one chairman, one vote"). As the old saying goes - you're freedom to swing your elbows ends where my nose begins, and so too with economic association. If you would starve a man until he renounced his political preferences - even if you deem them antithetical to the good of society - you're no better than Stalin.

[OmarIsmail]

So a political organization has to commit a crime before being seen as unacceptable? At that point may it already be too late (org has too much power)

[gus_massa]

If a political organization has not committed a crime, then what they are doing is legal and then they have the constitutional right to do it.

[int_19h]

Legally, yes. Whether that is socially acceptable or not is another matter.

National Socialist Order of America is perfectly legal, for example. But I don't think you'll find much sympathy for the notion that being a member of it should be socially acceptable, and that people should just respect your choices.