Xlibre [LWN.net]

Xlibre

Posted Jun 15, 2025 19:14 UTC (Sun) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
In reply to: Xlibre by linuxrocks123
Parent article: Ubuntu 25.10 to drop support for GNOME on Xorg

> We can't throw them in jail just because they believe or advocate for horrible things. That's a violation of human rights.

Is someone throwing him in jail? I don't see anyone (in the US) claiming that. A German mentioned having to report him at least, but the laws there around such views are quite different.

> Someone who is forced to interact with other people in a professional setting may, over time, change his discriminatory beliefs.

Isn't Masterpiece Cakeshop exactly the opposite: you can choose to not economically interact with someone based on your religious convictions? But political beliefs are not so blessed? I suppose political beliefs are not (generally) a protected class in the US, so maybe it *is* OK in that sense…but then it cuts both ways and deciding to not interact based on politics is fine?

> …what purpose do you think is served by conducting economic warfare against them by attacking their ability to earn a living?

Expressing disapproval of the product/company/processes? Am I obligated to buy something from anyone hawking some widget if I can't find a reason to need or want their widget because that would "[harm] their ability to earn a living"? If I find their widget as actively harmful to the well-being of my community (let's say they sell asbestos/leaded gasoline for vehicles/leaded paint in the gap between knowing it is harmful and the laws enforcing it come into force; perhaps PFAS chemicals would be the modern equivalent), do I have to stay silent because saying something might cause such harm? What if those harms come in the process of the *production* of their widget (e.g., child/slave labor) even if the widget itself is benign (e.g., shoes)? What if I really just don't want to funnel more attention/money/power to an entity I just personally find distateful (Soros, Gates, Musk, Nestlé, take your pick; there's a "villain" for any political view in business today).

Any of those things, on their own, are personal decisions. Stating my decisions publicly is a First Amendment right. It also mentions the right to "assembly" to build a group of like-minded individuals to discuss it. While the First Amendment says the right to "petition the government" (say, get laws passed to ban child labor), why would espousing such views to fellow citizens as such a group (through, say, advertising or social media) not also be protected under the general "speech" category as well?

> Philosophically extending that principle, I believe it's also wrong to use economic warfare to punish things that aren't crimes.

Will you speak out about using threatening lawsuits over the exercise of First Amendment rights (e.g., X suing ad agencies for refusing to buy adspace on X)? Is that not "economic warfare to punish things that aren't crimes" as well?

to post comments

Xlibre

Posted Jun 15, 2025 19:59 UTC (Sun) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648) [Link]

> Is someone throwing him in jail? I don't see anyone (in the US) claiming that. A German mentioned having to report him at least, but the laws there around such views are quite different.

Yeah, some guy said he "had" to report him which is almost certainly not true. I didn't realize he was German when I read what he wrote; it looks a lot less kooky now since of course if you're German you're going to care about British war crimes against your country (and I'm sure there probably were some). Anyway, he didn't actually deny the Holocaust happened, whether he thinks that or not, so he's going to be fine legally even if he gets reported.

> Isn't Masterpiece Cakeshop exactly the opposite: you can choose to not economically interact with someone based on your religious convictions? But political beliefs are not so blessed? I suppose political beliefs are not (generally) a protected class in the US, so maybe it *is* OK in that sense…but then it cuts both ways and deciding to not interact based on politics is fine?

All Masterpiece Cakeshop says stands for is that you can't be forced to use your creative talents to express something you don't believe. The gay couple in Masterpiece Cakeshop was free to buy any cake in the baker's store. They just weren't free to force the baker to make a custom cake containing a message the baker did not want to say.

> Expressing disapproval of the product/company/processes?

I'm not talking about an environmental group running ads saying people shouldn't buy from a company because it doesn't use dolphin-safe tuna. I'm talking about mobs creating giant shitstorms to coerce companies to fire individuals the mob has decided should be unpersons. I'm talking, specifically, about Brendan Eich and James Damore. Eich donated to a political cause the mob didn't like, and he ended up cast out of the project he'd been a part of since 1995. Damore wrote an essay containing political views the mob didn't like, and he ended up fired from his job even though he was probably good at it.

When this happens, it's not the government itself doing the dirty work, but letting mobs economically ruin people for expressive conduct or political advocacy still diminishes their de facto ability to exercise their right to free speech. That's why California's political discrimination law would be a good idea for other jurisdictions to implement.