Lets fabricate an extreme example, to illustrate the concept.
Lets say you own a store and Adolph Hitler walks in. Should you, as a business owner, have the right to kick him out of your store? I mean by your own formulation he hasn’t said or done anything inside your store that breaks any rules?
I’d say at a bare minimum it would be ok to kick him out. Because quite clearly his presence is going to absolutely cause distress to others. I mean what if your cashier or one of your customers is Jewish, quite clearly this mans words and actions present a very real threat to them, such that it is hardly reasonable to treat this man as any other customer even if he says or does nothing inside your store.
Or, to make it more relevant, Putin. He has, in a very real sense, been cut off from many large and even essential services in the West. Would you argue that Putin has a right to do business with western banks? You can hardly say that banking services are not important, and realistically if he was in Berlin and tried to do normal activities he would find this very difficult, if not impossible, in some cases. Is that not acceptable to you?
Point being I find your position an unreasonable one because it is quite clear words and actions can have impacts, even if they are not saying or doing things inside a business at this very second.
I mean clearly there is some line there where it transitions from reasonable to unreasonable. If Alex Jones went into a business where Sandy Hook survivor David Hogg was working and was kicked out on the spot, that seems eminently reasonable and appropriate to me. I don’t care how big or ‘essential’ said company is. Jones presents a malignant, malicious, and very real harm to survivors of the shooting, and if he finds it impossible to do business or live a normal life because of the consequences of his words and actions? Well fuck him, he could have chosen not to do those things.
Obviously at some point there is some level of speech where such a punishment is deeply excessive and wrong. Like if some bank executive makes it so you can’t buy a house because your daughter didn’t invite his daughter to her birthday party or something 10 years ago? Clearly that is an unreasonable response. So at some point on the axis between kindergartener says mean thing to literally Hitler there is a point at which enforcing social consequences becomes unwarranted or excessive.
But that point 100% is not at ‘never’.
