It, by definition, does not favor the status quo. Staying silent on a topic may be against the status quo, or it may be for it. That by definition makes this neutral.

>No, prohibiting pushing isn’t neutrality, its favoring the current state.

No it's not as explained above. Pushing may be for or against the status quo, and prohibiting pushing by this logic means neutrality. The status quo may be under threat by staying silent, or the status quo may not change by staying silent. That is neutrality.

You're essentially creating a non-falsifiable here by just assuming that "silence = for status quo".

>Yes, the a particular scope is being excluded.

Except nothing is out of scope, just time and place. You still have unlimited scope outside of work.

>That’s the excluded scope.

That's not a scope. You're company is not limiting your scope, you agreed to be there, during business hours, to conduct business.

>Sure, if the conservative position is not the status quo and the progressive one is; your preventing both (and others) from being heard, adversely impacting all that are not the status quo.

Yes, which in the long run means no one side is being heard or pushed over others... True neutrality.

>To the extent your “alternative” is true, its not an alternative, just a specific case of what I initially described.

Exactly, and it proves my point. The net of it all is neutral. QED.