'Nasty things' is a little bit nebulous. If the nasty thing in this case is this phrase: 'blacks are disagreeable.' I would absolutely either demand that person be fired or take my business elsewhere. I think furthering racism is more of a recipe for toxic fragmentation than firing racist, and don't see how it's unreasonable for me in that scenario to not want my money going into the hands of that racist employee.
It's meant to be nebulous, since that's how such a standard inevitably ends up. You and I consider racial hatred to be beyond the pale - but others say the same thing about calls to send in the National Guard, or opposition to Israel. If you can't say anything that any of your second-degree connections would find terrible, you can't really say anything controversial at all.
If we stop putting speech on a pedestal for just a second and consider it as a subset of all the actions someone can perform: if I buy products from a $clothingBrand and one of their C-levels commits a hate crime am I allowed to stop buying their clothes in protest? I think it's relatively uncontroversial to say I am. I don't want to further empower an racist abuser with my money, so it's reasonable for me to spend it elsewhere. What about if the C-level donates money to Dylann Roof's defense? I don't want my money going there either, so I'm going to do the same as in the first case. What if the C-level says 'blacks are distasteful' on twitter? Well, in the same way that physically harming someone and spending money are concrete actions with serious consequences, speech is also a concrete action with serious consequences. Imagine being a black employee at $clothingBrand: you will feel uncomfortable working there, you might worry about losing your job for a stupid reason or getting passed over for a promotion you deserve. Imagine being a racist employee at $clothingBrand: you will feel more assured in discriminating against your fellow employees who are black, because you know at least one C-level is actively racist, and more are okay with it. That C-level's speech will have significant consequences for both of these people, and if I want to avoid these outcomes in other companies I will stand in protest to stop it from happening again.
Now you might say, 'what if you complain about $controversialForeignPolicy on twitter and your employer is pressured to fire you?' Well I wouldn't like it, but not for the reason you would think. I have political goals I want to further, and I want a job. But I the problem does not lie for me in someone who thinks my actions are harmful complaining to my employer, the key difference is just that I think my statement and action has a good outcome and that the C-level's statements and actions have bad outcomes. Everyone has political, social, and economic capital to spend, and in general there is no problem for me with anyone spending it to stop other people from doing bad things. There are many sanctions we delegate to our government in our so-called social contract, but there are still a few we can and should leave at our own disposal.
I think speech should be put on a pedestal. I hate to give such a pithy response, but if you don't - if you aim to work towards a world where nobody can say offensive things - I'm not sure there's much for us to discuss here.
I didn't say speech wasn't special, I asked you to consider it as a kind of action, which it is. I value the free exchange of ideas because speech is such a significant kind of action. What I said is that I should be free to associate with people who do good things with that amazing freedom. What is the conclusion of your argument? That speech is so important that I shouldn't be able to pick who I want to be friends or business partners with based on what they say?
Yes, I consider speech to be that important. I don't think you should pick friends or business partners that way, although I don't think you should be forbidden to either.
