As long as Curtis stays professional and speaks only on Urbit [0] he is doing the right thing and should be allowed to speak.
The idea of a "Code of Belief" is a strawman -- the issue at hand is the expectation not of freedom of thought or freedom of speech, but a desire for speech without consequences (which inevitably requires that the freedom of speech of others be quashed).
> At what point does someone's routine vocal
> endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of
> violence become problematic?
> Or are we obligated to welcome these people into
> our conferences
> (workplaces?
> homes?)
> the issue at hand is the expectation not of freedom of
> thought or freedom of speech, but a desire for speech
> without consequences
I would be curious to know what you think free speech means, if it doesn't mean speech without consequence.
You can say anything you want, and the government won't intervene. That's all free speech means. Other people, groups, and corporations are free to judge you, criticize you, exclude you from their platforms and private events, organize boycotts against you, criticize people who agree with you, criticize people who choose not to exclude you, and so forth. You may dislike that they do those things, but they are free to do so without government interference, because of free speech.
You, in turn, are free to criticize and exclude them in a similar manner. This is dialogue, and a desire to promulgate your opinions but have others not promulgate their opinions (including when they're about you) is the height of hypocrisy.
Darn it, I thought we were going to get all the way through this discussion without someone wheeling out that old nag.
Once again: Attempting to ban people from unrelated fora based on their political views is not against the letter of the First Amendment to do this. But attempting to ban people from unrelated fora based on their political views is quite certainly against the spirit of the First Amendment.
I honestly can't believe someone could be dumb enough to think that the founders would want the government to dictate who people were required to admit to non-public settings. There's no way you're being sincere.
FIFY.
If you can cite cases where people silently disagreeing, e.g. with t-shirts or signs that didn't block the view of others, were removed, I'm all ears. But while I haven't watched this closely, I'm under the strong impression the removees were shouting him down, and were often physically violent.
To quote Ronald Reagan in an analogous situation, "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green".
The First Amendment cannot prevent social ostracization.
And frankly, I am of the view that it's better for views like Yarvin's to be out in the open where they can be challenged, rather than left to fester. That means - yes - that his speech must be allowed "without consequences" for his employment, etc.
As long as the person does all that on their own time and is professional and respectful in the work context? Never.
Any other questions?
I have few redundant personnel of my thought police I could rent out to you.