[curun1r]

The decision to continue to work with Breitbart aside, this post shows the failure of civics education in this country.

> Products are a form of speech, and free speech must be fiercely protected, even if we disagree with some of the voices.

The right to free speech that's protected in our constitution refers to speech being protected from the government. Nowhere in our constitution does it state that other individuals and businesses need to support the speech of others. It's a common misunderstanding of the first amendment. You could argue that by not censoring speech you find distasteful, you're adhering to the principles of the first amendment that people should be able to say whatever they choose without reprisal. But you could just as easily argue that in refusing to support speech you find harmful to this country, you're exercising your own constitutionally-protected right to freedom of expression. The important point is that the first amendment protects both Breitbart and anyone refusing to work with Breitbart from government punishment or silencing of that speech. And, in what might be more relevant to Shopify, the first amendment also protects anyone who wishes to advocate for a boycott of Shopify.

They would have had a stronger argument if they talked about discrimination. Their decision shares more in common with the decisions that other businesses have made to discriminate against people by not serving them. The oft-publicized example is religious bakers that won't make wedding cakes for gay couples. The difference being that what Breitbart is doing does not make them part of a protected class.

[notcolin]

The concept of freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. You're of the misunderstanding that the First Amendment and the last ~300 years of judicial precedent somehow transcend this concept (QED: it doesn't).

Not once does Lütke mention the First Amendment. You did that all on your own. More to the point, he isn't wrong in what he's saying. You're having a difficult time agreeing with him because your civics education prevents you from thinking beyond what was written on a nearly 300 year old document and you probably believe that Breitbart is the next Stormfront. Perhaps you should read something more modern, like Captain America #275 pg. 20.

http://i.imgur.com/WCF5GVE.png

[curun1r]

> freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship

Yes!

> or societal sanction

No! This is absolutely not the case. If you call someone the N-word, you should expect to be treated as a racist by society. Call someone a fag and expect to be treated as a homophobe. Freedom of speech does not guarantee the right to speech without any consequence. The government can imprison, tax and has many other abilities not granted to Shopify. For that reason, dissenting speech must be protected from them in a way that's fundamentally different than the way it must be protected from Shopify. But non-governmental actors absolutely do have a role in guiding speech to be more civil and create the society we want to live in. We do that through social pressure rather than with force majeur. It's that crucial difference that requires protection from the government but not from Shopify.

> Not once does Lütke mention the First Amendment

Except that he does. He quotes the ACLU talking about speech protected by the first amendment:

  ... Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups
  if they’re going to be preserved for everyone.