Regarding Ted Rall’s op-ed “Free Speech Has Consequences, but Should Firing Be One?” (Oct. 1): Mr. Rall acknowledges the fundamental difference between public and private employers—the former are subject to First Amendment constraints, the latter are not—but he seems to decry this state of affairs. What he overlooks is that the right of private actors to free speech includes the right to refuse to deal or do business with, or to boycott or cancel, those whose speech is viewed as objectionable.

Should an employer generally...

Photo: Getty Images

Regarding Ted Rall’s op-ed “Free Speech Has Consequences, but Should Firing Be One?” (Oct. 1): Mr. Rall acknowledges the fundamental difference between public and private employers—the former are subject to First Amendment constraints, the latter are not—but he seems to decry this state of affairs. What he overlooks is that the right of private actors to free speech includes the right to refuse to deal or do business with, or to boycott or cancel, those whose speech is viewed as objectionable.

Should an employer generally be free to fire those who engage in speech of which the employer disapproves? Absolutely. We already have limited that freedom by law in various ways: An employee cannot be fired for speaking out in favor of unionization or in opposing his or her employer’s discriminatory practices. But suggesting a sweeping First Amendment right for private employees does not enhance the freedom Mr. Rall claims to cherish; it would destroy it.

Kenneth A. Margolis

Chappaqua, N.Y.