For example, big-tech pushes its liberal ideology in America while submitting to authoritarian regimes and censoring that same ideology in other countries. Further, those same regimes are provided a platform and rarely face the same censorship shown toward conservatives in the United States.
Pretty black and white: "We aspire to be like those regimes!"
So the trademark thing is patently ridiculous. The Menards brand communicates "We're like Milorganite", not "We are Milorganite".
I'm sorta surprised they didn't take a more anti-competitive slant to their claim. Menards is obviously leveraging its position as a distributor of fertilizers to encourage users to buy their product. I'm not close enough to anti-competition nuances to know if it's over the line, but it certainly seems closer to it here than the trademark claim of "their lawn fertilizer shows a lawn, just like ours".
WHEREAS, the general assembly finds that the first amendment of the United States constitution asserts that the government "shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press";
The first amendment is great.
and WHEREAS, freedom of the press in the United States is not absolute and is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law;
Haha, just kidding.
I disagree with this. Having private opinions vs. expressing them are two different things. Free speech is speech free from government censure, not free from consequences.
Employers making decisions based on expressed opinion is completely reasonable.
Famous author G.C. Paddleling, known for publishing the wildly successful "Fuzzy Paner" series, publishes a tweet along the lines of:
Everyone with brown eyes should have their left arm gnawed off by rabid dogs because [REASONS]
Are we supposed to just nod and say "Interesting?". It's an outrageous statement and the societal consequences of making such a statement are how individuals and private entities choose to respond to those statements. Those responses are themselves open to debate, but this argument is pretty weak.
I do think some of the debates can get a little... intense, but a lot of the stuff triggering this seems pretty objectionable to me, and worthy of some intensity in the response. Threats and violence aren't ok in these debates, so that certainly needs to be a line, but that's not what this letter is complaining about.