Why should any business owner be forced to hire a person who holds views they find ethically abhorrent? Political expression is already protected by the First Amendment. What Ramaswamy proposes is transforming the negative liberty of free speech into a positive “right,” which is to say, a “right” that compels others to accept, endorse, and sometimes fund political viewpoints they disagree with.
Even those who support overturning Section 230, which shields tech companies from liability among other things, typically argue that social media is the public square and should be treated as a utility, with guarantees of state-imposed viewpoint neutrality. It is a debatable position, but it is narrowly focused. You have no inherent “right” to work for a company that manufactures widgets.
The logic, if not the intention, behind banning viewpoint censorship is quite similar to the rationale of states like Colorado when they try to destroy people like Jack Phillips.
[Maybe if we just got the government out of the censorship and compelled-speech business, much of this would sort itself out. — Ed]
Join the conversation as a VIP Member