> However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice Since we're not talking about the

> However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice Since we're not talking about the constitution, which strictly relates to government and public property, then we're talking about private entities and private property. You do not have the right to speak on my property. Forcing that is in direct contradiction to a free society that has a concept of private property. I am all for fostering tolerance to offensive speech, but not at the expensive of destroying the concept of private ownership. It is absolutely not a fundamental right. It should be a social norm, but that's all it should be. > It seems to me that it's up to all of us to tolerate non-extreme dissenting voices Who gets to define what is and is not extreme? Freedom of expression means tolerating something offensive by definition. If it's not offensive, it doesn't need to be tolerated.