I know it already is but should it be?

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Or choose not to hire them

    This just allows capitalists to decide what is acceptable speech.

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Or choose not to do business with them, or choose not to help them on the side of the road, or choose not to invite them to your parties, or choose not to let them on your property, or choose to sign them up for all the useless email and mail spam you can find…

      Don’t tunnel on one thing. A freedom for everyone means a freedom for the capitalists, and the communists too.

      • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I generally agree it’s fine where there’s an “equality of arms”.

        A freedom for everyone means a freedom for the capitalists, and the communists too.

        By capitalists I mean business owners and/or bosses. Your boss shouldn’t be able to dictate what you can say outside your job. That just lets the owners of corporations control speech.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          That’s… One way to look at it. On the other hand, if I were an employer, should I be required to keep people on payroll if they were going around saying “I work for Bytemeister, and I think Hitler was right and we should have exterminated the Jews”? That’s going to affect my business badly, it’s going to cost me my quality of life, if not my entire business.