Help me study for my Philosophy class. I’m stuck and don’t understand.
Ordinarily opponents of censorship direct their attention against the government patrolling political speech through its formidable legal apparatus. But, nowadays, there may be more to fear from individuals and informal groups patrolling unpopular opinions and punishing them without reliance on the police power of the state. What about this? A CEO or chairman of the board of a restaurant chain remarks in an interview that he/she thinks that gay marriage ought not be legal. Would it be morally permissible – not legally, which would be a different issue entirely – to organize a national boycott against that company? Or to bring pressure on the corporation to fire the CEO in favor of some person with ideas more congenial to protestors? What is there to be said on either side of this issue?
If the wrongness of gossip and slander derives from the harm of gossip and slander, then if the gossip or slander is harmless, then are they permissible? Why or why not?
Ref: (Moral Literacy, Chapter 7)
At least 2 paragraphs for each question.