Yes, it is, actually. That's literally what the employees voicing their displeasure want --
(1) for his speech as a private citizen to not contradict the public values of the company he leads (i.e. for him to not donate to, say, exclusionary institutions), and,
(2) most likely, going beyond (1): for his speech as a private citizen to be "in alignment" with the public values of the company he leads (i.e., to compel speech).
You can agree or disagree that any of this is a reasonable or desirable or legal, but it's Orwellian doublespeak to claim it's "not silencing".
He’s an extremely wealthy individual. His “voice” aka his “speech” aka his ability to influence the actions of the government via political donations is orders of magnitude greater than pretty much all of his employees. He ain’t being silenced.
The only people being silenced here are the LGBTQ+ kids going to that abhorrent school he donated $250,000 to
Comments
Holding him to the same standards that the company publicly advertises it has is not silencing.
Yes, it is, actually. That's literally what the employees voicing their displeasure want --
(1) for his speech as a private citizen to not contradict the public values of the company he leads (i.e. for him to not donate to, say, exclusionary institutions), and,
(2) most likely, going beyond (1): for his speech as a private citizen to be "in alignment" with the public values of the company he leads (i.e., to compel speech).
You can agree or disagree that any of this is a reasonable or desirable or legal, but it's Orwellian doublespeak to claim it's "not silencing".
He’s an extremely wealthy individual. His “voice” aka his “speech” aka his ability to influence the actions of the government via political donations is orders of magnitude greater than pretty much all of his employees. He ain’t being silenced.
The only people being silenced here are the LGBTQ+ kids going to that abhorrent school he donated $250,000 to