Should private organizations be allowed to limit free speech?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I think the First Amendment should be extended to say that NO ONE can attempt to limit anyone else's speech in any way (i.e. that every corporation, university, internet forum, social network, and anything else must have complete freedom of speech).  With that said, no one would have to hire anyone who goes against the mission and beliefs of the company.

[mieastwick]

This isn't coherent. At all.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This isn't coherent. At all.

This.

Also, "mission" and "beliefs" could be broadly defined to allow overt ideological hiring restrictions. At the same time, companies should be allowed to remove disorderly folks from the premises.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

My concern is that when the private sector limits free speech, it is almost always socially conservative viewpoints that are targeted, particularly on issues like transgenderism and political correctness.  For example, I have had posts censored on Atlas for (very intentionally) using the pronouns and names that correspond to biological sex, or, ESPN fired Curt Schilling for voicing opposition to transgenderism.  Restrictions on speech in the private sector are generally used by elites to silence conservative values.

[dead0man]

Yes (I think?) private places should be able to limit speech.  You can't stand in my living room, message board or front yard and say sh**t I don't want you to say.  That's what the court house steps are for, or your own living room or message board.  Places selling sh**t on land they own (or rent) can have you GTFO as well.  It gets iffy when you're on private land that gets a substantial amount of it's funding from the govt.  Sports stadiums, unis, hospitals, others I'm sure.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

My concern is that when the private sector limits free speech, it is almost always socially conservative viewpoints that are targeted, particularly on issues like transgenderism and political correctness.  For example, I have had posts censored on Atlas for (very intentionally) using the pronouns and names that correspond to biological sex, or, ESPN fired Curt Schilling for voicing opposition to transgenderism.  Restrictions on speech in the private sector are generally used by elites to silence conservative values.

So obviously, free market principles are important only so long as they don't rise in opposition to your ideology. Makes sense. Should Tomi Lahren have been fired?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Of course.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Legally allowed to?  Yes.

Should we be indifferent to it and never complain about it?  No.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i have a right to shout my lungs out about our octopian overlords in the middle of a denny's and nobody can stop me ≧ʍ≦

[Mr. Reactionary]

So would the OP be ok with salafi muslims and trigglypuff holding occupy protests on sunday morning inside whatever christian church they come across.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

My concern is that when the private sector limits free speech, it is almost always socially conservative viewpoints that are targeted, particularly on issues like transgenderism and political correctness.  For example, I have had posts censored on Atlas for (very intentionally) using the pronouns and names that correspond to biological sex, or, ESPN fired Curt Schilling for voicing opposition to transgenderism.  Restrictions on speech in the private sector are generally used by elites to silence conservative values.

Not deliberately misgendering people is not political correctness, it's basic human decency.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yes. I believe that David Leip has every right to ban me with or without reason. It's his forum. Likewise, free speech doesn't apply in other people's homes. I can't go upstairs to my friend Georges apartments, insult him, and not expect my speech to be protected.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Legally allowed to?  Yes.

Should we be indifferent to it and never complain about it?  No.

[Goldwater]

Legally allowed to?  Yes.

Should we be indifferent to it and never complain about it?  No.

[Kingpoleon]

So would the OP be ok with salafi muslims and trigglypuff holding occupy protests on sunday morning inside whatever christian church they come across.

No that's different to her.

[JerryArkansas]

Of course?  Why is that a question.

[Kingpoleon]

This question should be carefully trodden on. The "fine line" between public and private property is commonly blurred.

[The_Doctor]

Yes. I believe that David Leip has every right to ban me with or without reason. It's his forum. Likewise, free speech doesn't apply in other people's homes. I can't go upstairs to my friend Georges apartments, insult him, and not expect my speech to be protected.

So would the OP be ok with salafi muslims and trigglypuff holding occupy protests on sunday morning inside whatever christian church they come across.

Both this. Functionally the First Amendment doesn't work in practice inside private forums that have no government funding. The owners of private spaces have every right to do with it as they please within accepted current constitutional and legal statutes.

I don't understand your slow conversion into a 1970s liberal.

[they don't love you like i love you]

So you want it to be illegal to delete posts on a message board?

[fhtagn]

Legally allowed to?  Yes.

Should we be indifferent to it and never complain about it?  No.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Legally allowed to?  Yes.

Should we be indifferent to it and never complain about it?  No.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I think the First Amendment should be extended to say that NO ONE can attempt to limit anyone else's speech in any way (i.e. that every corporation, university, internet forum, social network, and anything else must have complete freedom of speech).  With that said, no one would have to hire anyone who goes against the mission and beliefs of the company.

     This idea is incongruous with the notion of property rights. If you own an establishment, it naturally falls upon you to define standards for appropriate conduct on your grounds. Not to mention that your stipulation of "in any way" would suggest no limitation on incitements to violence and threats to public safety (e.g. falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater), which are not protected by the First Amendment. Overall, I have to agree with this:

Legally allowed to?  Yes.

Should we be indifferent to it and never complain about it?  No.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Legally allowed to?  Yes.

Should we be indifferent to it and never complain about it?  No.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Bump, to ask whether ER still thinks this in light of Kathy Griffin being fired by CNN?

[Dr. MB]

Not at all.