There are several arguments on this post to that effect: that, yes, organizations should have no right to exclude anyone for their behavior, and should be forced to accept anyone who demands membership.

Banning criminals is a popular rhetorical construction used by those who do not have felony records, in order to scaremonger others into supporting an argument that promotes existing biases and status quos; in this case, in favor of the “sexual misconduct is disregarded” bias.

Oh I know, I once got into a massive Twitter blowout with Brendan Eich because he believes that all computing conferences should invite "the best" speakers (how do you determine that? well I assume "invented JS" would be a qualifier...) regardless of their personal or legal issues.

It's a tough philosophical space balancing between free speech/association and criminal discrimination and I think it shouldn't be surprising that an ecosystem that produced a "free speech absolutist" like Musk who bans dissenting opinions would also create a group of people who think that everyone has to tolerate them no matter how abhorrent their behavior or ideas as long as it doesn't cross a line into "criminal".

I would change one word only here, to represent the flexibility of beliefs that typically ensues from any unfavorable interpretation thereof:

> as long as it doesn’t cross a line into “excluding them”.

Well yea. Nothing white dudes hate more than being told women and minorities are allowed to do something they aren't (and since it appears to be just us talking here, I think we can both admit that's really all that's going on).

"Oh no, a problematic white man suffered a consequence. I'm a problematic white dude, I wouldn't want to be kicked out! This should be illegal!"