But in this case, the (Chinese) government induced a company to annoy an employee. That actually is an assault on free-speech, because it was not the company itself that decided to do so.
If this is allowed, then what would prevent the US government from telling Apple to fire everyone who they do not like? If the gov commits a free speech prohibited action itself, or directs a company to do it for them, does not and must not make a difference. Else, the protection of a citizen would be worthless.
The difference here to my example is that is was the CCP instead of the USG that induced the action. But does that make it any better?
Apple made a business decision. They are free to ignore the Chinese governments wishes, at the cost of access to the Chinese market place.
The reviewer works for Apple, and has to follow Apples rules, not make up their own. I also dislike that Apple kowtows to the CCP, but that is their choice and given the large revenues involved, I understand it. I won’t tell Apple Shareholders to leave a legal market and give up a quarter of their share value, just in order to meet my ethical standards.
You may enjoy walking around your home wearing no pants. That’s your right. But when you go to a work place, it’s your employers right to tell you to put your pants back on.
If this is allowed, then what would prevent the US government from telling Apple to fire everyone who they do not like? If the gov commits a free speech prohibited action itself, or directs a company to do it for them, does not and must not make a difference. Else, the protection of a citizen would be worthless.
The difference here to my example is that is was the CCP instead of the USG that induced the action. But does that make it any better?