Why Vivek Ramaswamy’s Plan To Ban ‘Viewpoint Censorship’ Is A Terrible Idea

Vivek Ramaswamy (entrepreneur) is the newest candidate to run for the Republican presidential nominee. You can read more about his candidacy. Agenda The Wall Street Journal. Although it is heavy on trendy populism his embrace of meritocracy, economic growth and democracy is a significant improvement over the drab dead-end statism that characterized the Wall Street Journal. “post-liberal” right.

But his most unique proposal, one that will probably sound enticing to many people, is a terrible one — and one that would expand state interference in speech and end up boomeranging on those it claims to protect:

Viewpoint censorship is not limited to the internet. It has a wide-ranging impact on our economy. You shouldn’t be allowed to fire someone because they are gay, black, or Muslim. I will work with Congress in order to make political expression an American civil right. I will also enforce existing civil rights laws to protect workers against discrimination based on their viewpoint. Employers cannot force employees to submit to any religious belief, as per the federal prohibition against religious discrimination. This includes secular religions as defined by Torcaso and Watkins (1961) and U.S.v. Seeger (1965).

There are several options. Important There is a moral and legal distinction between firing someone for a certain immutable characteristic (e.g., his skin color) and firing someone because of a political opinion. Ramaswamy’s plan, from what I understand, would make it illegal to fire a Social Conservative at Disney. A Jewish restaurant could also sever ties with a neo Nazi, or a Catholic adoption agency could fire an employee who believes nine-month abortions are illegal. “health care” The nuclear family and hedge funds should be destroyed. Hedge funds could be forced to keep Trotskyites who believe that profits are evil on the payroll. WalMart would have Wal-Mart wait until the worker who is trying to take big box chains out the door.

Even if stockholders lose millions, corporations would not be able to fire executives who make embarrassment of the company by publicly converting from Pastafarianism. Employers will likely find it more likely that such legislation would further politicize the market. More You are interested in learning more about the ideologies of potential employees.

Why should business owners be forced to hire people who hold views they find morally objectionable? The First Amendment already protects political expression. Ramaswamy’s proposal is to transform the First Amendment. negative liberty Free speech as a positive “right,” This is to say, a “right” That encourages others to support, endorse, and sometimes even fund political views they don’t agree with.

Even those who are against Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability, often argue that social media is the open space and should be treated with utility status, with guaranteed viewpoint neutrality. It is a “a href=”https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/it-doesnt-matter-if-twitter-is-a-publisher-or-a-platform/”>debatable PositionIt is however very narrowly focused. You do not have an inherent “right” To work in a widget manufacturing company.

Banning viewpoint censorship is a similar idea to the