The stated reason for his firing was for breaking the existing written rules of the company. That part was his choice and is his fault. I feel like the goal posts are moving. The question you asked was whether it was his fault if doubt occurred as a reaction to his ideas, not whether he was at fault for getting fired.
I guess you're right, it is censorship, so I take it back. I still feel like it applies to government and public speech, more than within companies. It feels like the wrong word when describing the legal consequences that are widely considered acceptable for breaking the rules inside a company. It feels pretty different than public speech suppression, which is, in contrast, widely considered unacceptable.
The code of conduct, I understand, banned creating an unwelcoming culture through biased behavior. Saying he's in violation of that rule is begging the question.
So I'm not moving the goalposts. They weren't really set in the first place. I'm asking, more or less, if it's fair for a code of conduct (explicit or ad hoc) to make employees responsible for how their words are taken.
> It feels pretty different than public speech suppression, which is, in contrast, widely considered unacceptable.
It's worse when governments do it because it's hard to change countries if you want your freedom to express yourself. But it's still an undue burden to have to switch jobs or even careers.
I guess you're right, it is censorship, so I take it back. I still feel like it applies to government and public speech, more than within companies. It feels like the wrong word when describing the legal consequences that are widely considered acceptable for breaking the rules inside a company. It feels pretty different than public speech suppression, which is, in contrast, widely considered unacceptable.