• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is your view on criticizing private entities for their policies?

If a private entity has a silly (but legal) policy...


  • Total voters
    16

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't know how many time I've seen someone create a thread criticizing some (completely legal) policy by a private company, school, or church...only to have someone else immediately pipe in with "They're a private entity, they can do what they want." As though this somehow negates the point that the original poster was making.

If someone feels offended by a private company's actions, I think they can and should voice their disapproval. And unless the critic is suggesting that the government needs to step in and PREVENT private entities from implementing their policy, responding with "Private entities can do what they want" is completely irrelevant, and generally misses the point entirely.

What do you think? Is "private entities can do what they want" a valid rebuttal to private citizens who wish to criticize their policies, assuming there is no law-breaking or mention of government intervention?
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen the statement "they can do what they want" to justify such policies, only that they are legally allowed to enact such policies. I've never seen the statement used to argue what was done was the correct decision.

So to answer your question, both of your options are correct. People should be free to criticize them and they should be free to do what they want.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen the statement "they can do what they want" to justify such policies, only that they are legally allowed to enact such policies. I've never seen the statement used to argue what was done was the correct decision.

So to answer your question, both of your options are correct. People should be free to criticize them and they should be free to do what they want.

A lot of times I see people respond with "they can do what they want" when no one in the thread has even suggested that their actions were illegal, or that the government should intervene.
 
As long as the policy isn't against the law or isn't completely utterly stupid they can do whatever they want imo.

Of course what is stupid and what is not is pretty much subjective so....
 
Because more often than not the comment is followed by "there outta be a law."

Often times that is not the case. The most recent example of this is the "Conservative kiosk not allowed at mall" thread. I don't think anyone suggested that the government needs to FORCE the mall to respect all political views...but several people chimed in with "they're a private company, they can do what they want." This completely misses the point of the original poster's perfectly valid objection to corporate stifling of political views.

Other examples include any criticism of a company firing people for a stupid (but legal) reason, any criticism of a church for discriminating against/amongst its members or promoting sexual misinformation, any criticism of a private school for kicking a student out for a stupid reason, etc.

It's completely valid for people to voice their concerns when influential entities do stupid things. This is just as true of private entities as it is of the government.
 
Often times that is not the case. The most recent example of this is the "Conservative kiosk not allowed at mall" thread. I don't think anyone suggested that the government needs to FORCE the mall to respect all political views...but several people chimed in with "they're a private company, they can do what they want." This completely misses the point of the original poster's perfectly valid objection to corporate stifling of political views.

Other examples include any criticism of a company firing people for a stupid (but legal) reason, any criticism of a church for discriminating against/amongst its members or promoting sexual misinformation, any criticism of a private school for kicking a student out for a stupid reason, etc.

It's completely valid for people to voice their concerns when influential entities do stupid things. This is just as true of private entities as it is of the government.

Of course it is, but what are you going to do about it?

I mean unless it's a major faux pa no one really cares.
 
Can I choose both?

People have the right to voice their opinions on any matter they wish, including the practices and policies of private entities.

BUT

Private entities can do what they want, regardless of public opinion.
 
I don't know how many time I've seen someone create a thread criticizing some (completely legal) policy by a private company, school, or church...only to have someone else immediately pipe in with "They're a private entity, they can do what they want." As though this somehow negates the point that the original poster was making.

If someone feels offended by a private company's actions, I think they can and should voice their disapproval. And unless the critic is suggesting that the government needs to step in and PREVENT private entities from implementing their policy, responding with "Private entities can do what they want" is completely irrelevant, and generally misses the point entirely.

What do you think? Is "private entities can do what they want" a valid rebuttal to private citizens who wish to criticize their policies, assuming there is no law-breaking or mention of government intervention?

I say both.For example a private company can voice liberal beliefs or support liberal causes but I as a individual am free to criticize or even go as far to boycott that private company for their actions.
 
I agree with both options. If it is legal, then the private company has the right to do it, but if it is silly then we individuals have the right to criticize it.
 
It's America, you can bitch about anything you want mostly. Doesn't matter. Of course, private entities may also do as they wish. So you can say "this sucks because of X", but there's not much you can do about it outside of many consumer pressure if it's something which sells a service/product.
 
It's funny; most often I've heard "they should allowed to say whatever they want!" in response to people criticizing, say, the Dixie Chicks.

The whole statement is a red herring. No one said they couldn't say it. But that doesn't exempt them from taking social heat for doing so.
 
It's funny; most often I've heard "they should allowed to say whatever they want!" in response to people criticizing, say, the Dixie Chicks.

The whole statement is a red herring. No one said they couldn't say it. But that doesn't exempt them from taking social heat for doing so.

I just don't understand why people feel the need to respond to every criticism of a private entity with "They can do what they want." Usually, the person criticizing them never disputed that point in the first place.
 
I just don't understand why people feel the need to respond to every criticism of a private entity with "They can do what they want." Usually, the person criticizing them never disputed that point in the first place.

And I agree with you.
 
Back
Top Bottom