[retrocat]

> I don't think a general non-persecution right exists.

Yes, and no; one can be criticized for membership of a social group, but when people take action against the social group, I believe that can start to step into the territory of hate crimes, but I don't know if I'd consider that implying a right.

> The key point is spofity has a right to offer Joe money to use their platforms. Employees who disagree based on politics and threaten to quit working is new. If the company decides to replace them I don't believe they are in a legal position to strike.

This, I agree with. My original post was about the morals of the move, both on Spotify's part, and the Employees' part, but I have very little doubt about the legal aspect of it.

Spotify can offer Joe Rogan money. The employees can protest this. Spotify can perform editorial control. The question is, should they?

[krapp]

>The question is, should they?

Maybe the question should be why shouldn't they?

If the employees are protesting in good faith and not employing violence to coerce their employer, why shouldn't they?

If Spotify feels editorial control is in their business interests, and it doesn't violate their contract with Joe Rogan, why shouldn't they exercise it?

It's odd that so many people are complaining so vehemently about a situation in which the rights that Hacker News usually considers sacrosanct - voluntary contracts, capitalism and free speech, are not actually being undermined.

[wolco2]

If spotify management wishes to end an agreement with Joe they will. Why should spotify management end that agreement? Because a group of employees want it?

Let's say that happens. But another group of employees may feel the opposite and start protesting for Joe. Now what do you?