This has gotten pretty far afield from the original discussion, which was discussing PC vs anti-PC.
Obviously, any employer has the right to make that employment contingent on their employee’s behavior. Nobody’s debating that. And that includes the government AS AN EMPLOYER.
Free speech is about government not being able to limit speech for those who do not have an employee relationship with them. That’s why things like the Florida limitations are so wrong. They cannot be justified under any reasonable interpretation of the law.
But you write:
They are exercising free speech by saying what they find unacceptable.
It doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to anyone else.
Full agreement. You can always not listen. You can also protest somebody else’s exercise of free speech; in fact, such use of the freedom is encouraged.
But questions arise when the “hecker’s veto” is used. If Ben Shapiro stands on a soapbox on a street corner in Berkeley and the Fascist AntiFas shouts him down, that’s morally repugnant, shows low character, and political insecurity, but it’s perfectly legal.
Now, the moment Ben becomes an invited speaker of a campus-recognized organization and moves his soapbox into a UC Berkeley building according to the rights that organization has under the UC charter, he has an absolute right to speak, an absolute right to be heard, and the university has an absolute responsibility to insure that he IS heard. Because they’re government. And what we are bitching about in this regard is NOT that contrary views are offered, but that the University is remiss in its responsibility to insure these speakers can speak. And that fire is fanned by circumstantial evidence that indicates that the reason they do not insure their ability to speak is due to bias on their part.
What the anti-PC advocates really want is to be able to say whatever they damn well please without consequences, without the discomfort of pushback, without challenge.
This is ignorant beyond belief. You can easily prove it to yourself, since YouTube is full of campus speeches from left-hated speakers like Ben, Ann Coulter, and Milo where not only do they patiently wade through the morass of immature name-calling that comes from the assembled multitude, then open the microphones for questions FROM ANYONE, and not only that, they THRIVE on pushback and challenge. This is the core reason why I admire all three of them so much; I am an excellent and experienced public speaker, but the negative energy in those rooms would crush me. But it energizes them and make them stronger.
It always stopped conversation dead in it’s tracks. Everyone got uncomfortable, no doubt him most of all. But he put himself out there to make us reflect on the cruelty of such jokes by personalizing it to someone present. He challenged us.
This is a horrible example. Nobody is bemoaning the fact that they can no longer tell a cruel joke. If you think THAT is what the “anti-PC” movement is about, you’re simply not paying attention.