When it's done to blacklist individuals from employment it is. History also disagrees with you.

The same people who are complaining about no headphone jack this year were complaining about Flash not being supported then.

Just like people have the free speech rights to use racial epithets, but are expected to politely refrain from doing so. Yes. There are a lot of things like that, where people can choose to do evil. When they aren't evil people, we expect them not to do that.

Do you want to live in a society where everyone goes ahead and does every evil thing they think they can get away with? Because I'd rather live in a society where we try to be good to each other instead.

"The freedom" isn't in question. Actually blacklisting people is.

On a personalized scale, people see their energy bills increasing and their freedom diminishing, but they don't personally see harmful weather changes and they haven't personally had to deal with water encroaching on their beach house.

Also, if I was someone like Phil Fish, I'd want to look up the definition and case law for tortious interference and consider whether I could afford to spend as much on lawyers as Palmer Luckey.

You offer several examples. None of them are "fire a specific employee who has bad politics or I won't do business with you". It's obvious why you want to change the subject from blacklisting Palmer Luckey to something a little more defensible. But we don't need to decide every question. Today's question is whether blacklisting a person from employment for bad politics is wrong. History and conscience should tell us it's wrong. The fact that people like you won't go on record specifically supporting and endorsing it should tell us it's wrong.

Since it's wrong, let's not do it.

I'm not going to lawyer it for you. "I oppose blacklisting people from employment because of bad politics. I support people being able to engage in their chosen political speech without their (unrelated, non-political) employment being threatened."

Can you make a similar statement? It doesn't seem like you can, because it doesn't seem like you oppose blacklisting.

what Google does. That's what makes a Google and Facebook so creepy. Microsoft is catching up to them.

Yep. It's an all-purpose justification. But maybe try to be good to people rather than trying to justify hurting them.

People who aren't trying to justify or support evil behavior don't need to engage in that sort of lawyering. They can just say they oppose evil behavior like blacklisting and don't want to hurt people, even people with bad politics.

If you do want to blacklist people or otherwise hurt them or punish them or do nasty, evil things to them, then your political side can't be the good one. Maybe the other side is also bad -- whatever -- haters always have a grievance list just like yours.

Do you want a world of steadily escalating hurtful attacks and retributions? Why? And why should non-haters join you on your journey of destruction?

Banning from employment. Palmer Luckey is clearly qualified and accomplished and skilled enough to lead Oculus. Do you think he should be fired from that job and denied any other similar job for having bad politics? That's blacklisting.

It doesn't take lots of precise legalistic definitions to oppose doing evil things to people. You can just say you oppose it. If you support it, then sure, go ahead and lawyer away. Supporting evil requires justifications. Opposing it doesn't.

They won't even say they support blacklisting people because blacklisting has such a notorious history. If people want to engage in evil behavior, what's wrong with pointing it out and trying to get them to own up to it?

Ultimately, I'm hoping people will tone down their hatred and choose not to engage in blacklisting. Don't be evil. Maybe try to discuss disagreements rather than trying to hurt people. How can your side be right when there's so much hate and you're trying to hurt people?

Wow. If you're going to write weird stuff trying to lawyer the Golden Rule, please do it in Latin. Thanks in advance.

That's a very odd thing to say. You must think you're potentially being threatened with arrest every time anyone talks to you:

Anyone: "Good morning!"
You: "Are you threatening to arrest me if I don't have a good morning? You didn't say you weren't!"
Anyone: "Um... no. But I'll make sure never to talk to you again."
You: "Good. I was worried about being threatened with arrest. You have to tell me you're not threatening me every time you say anything!"
Anyone: "Ok. Bye. Forever, I hope."
You: "Are you threatening ..."
Anyone: "No!!