CEO Freedom of speech

[Lafayette]

Business and profits leaders and politics have always been together since day one of this nation. Look at Morris’ impact on the economy during and after the Revolution.

Over time, business leaders HAVE expressed opinion in politics as well as entertainers and athletes in the sports of the times. Actors and writers were known for their politics; it was their bread and butter. Athletes have always been breaking barriers; look at the first baseball teams in the US.

CEO’s have always had input into politics. It helped to determine the directions of their business and for those who wanted active roles in politics would go as far as to buy and start a newspaper to voice their politics with.

people who disagree with also tend to disagree with the politics the CEO or celebrity has. That is when you hear things like they should be quiet...but the ones who have politics they agree with, then those peoples are “heroes telling it like it is” or “bucking the PC system”.

Isee anyone who wants the CEO’s to shut up are just mad because they are acting against what they want; which currently is anti-restrictive voting legislation. If it was the other way around, there would be no commentary.

It’s kind of like when they are all for boycotting...until the boycotting is against THEIR agenda, then suddenly boycotting is somehow “un-American”.

Oh, really. And what about "the people"? Who's listening to them?

The ballot-box speaks for itself, and nobody-but-nobody need spend time prancing about Capitol Hill looking for someone to listen to their griefs. Besides, it is far better to express those complaints within a political party to assure that they be heard by all and not just "your favorite member of Congress".

Maybe we need a 3- or 4-party political system to get our griefs across? Ever think of that? Why is America historically the ONLY developed country with only two parties? Any time a third or fourth is created inevitably it drops by the wayside.

Are we all that ignorant of the ruminations happening in LaLaLand-on-the-Potomac ... ?

 

[reflechissez]

I'm not the one who does not understand the meaning of "public." There are only two kinds of people, public and private. Those who have been elected, and those who have not. CEOs are generally speaking one of the "have nots," unless you are someone like Trump who is both a CEO and elected to a public office.

If you expect to be understood, you have to understand the meaning of the words you use. Calling CEOs "public figures" when they clearly are not demonstrates that you do not know the difference between a private individual and a public individual.

Look up the definition of "public figure' and get back to me. You don't get to redefine a word to support your flaccid argument.

Public figure - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

public figure

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[reflechissez]

THE CEO SYNDROME



The position of "CEO" giveS no one an automatic right or privilege to access a member of Congress for particular attention to their concerns. They are no more nor any less in status than any other citizen of the nation who may want to interface with their elected members of Congress.

No member of Congress should be paying attention to CEO's just because they are CEO's. They are simply American citizens and we all have a right to interface with our representatives to Congress.

So, get off the CEO-syndrome! Real economic-justice is still in the making in America that long, long ago went off on a "get-rich-quick" bent ... !

PS: And please have a look at the historical inscription quoted below. It was applicable in the 19th and 20th centuries and is still applicable today!

I have a feeling the CEO of GM could get a meeting with a congress person easier than you or I could. What you think "should" happen has no bearing on it.

 

[mrjurrs]

No they are not.



Public figures are elected by the public. CEOs are private individuals, none of them are elected to hold a public office.

There is a difference between a public figure and a public official. Public figures also include a person of great public interest or familiarity, such as a celebrity, business leader, movie star, or sports hero.

 

[Hk...]

A government that does not have a glass democracy or a liberal democratic system is a dictatorial government.

 

[Peter]

No they are not.



Public figures are elected by the public. CEOs are private individuals, none of them are elected to hold a public office.

Pop and sports stars are public figures.
Who elected them to that position?

 

[Glitch]

Pop and sports stars are public figures.
Who elected them to that position?

You are obviously unable to comprehend that public figures are only those who have been elected. It does not matter how popular they may be, if they are not elected then they can't possibly be a public figure. Celebrities are not public figures, but your Mayor is. Get a clue and learn the difference.

 

[aociswundumho]

A government that does not have a glass democracy or a liberal democratic system is a dictatorial government.

It's not binary, it's a continuum. A modern democracy and a dictatorship are just different degrees of the state. The dictatorship is more capricious, and covers virtually every aspect of your life, while a modern democracy is more predicable, and it allows us freedom in certain areas of our lives. But they both dictate, and both will imprison you for disobedience, and they both will kill you if you resist.