1A makes freedom of speech a legal principle, but it also exists as a philosophical principle and a moral value.

But fair play is also a moral value held by many.

For years, in my experience, it was unilaterally the "blue tribe" in the US who would point at XKCD 1357, and argue that the constitutional protection of freedom of speech doesn't extend to being able to keep your job, since the job doesn't come from the government in the first place (and because of "at-will" employment laws, and because of your employer's freedom of association). But if you believe this, then you have to accept that it can also be used against you.

I personally think it matters quite a bit exactly what was said, along with how strongly it was identifiably tied to the company, and what the PR effect would be. Companies shouldn't, absent other extenuating factors, have to keep around someone whose mere presence will hurt the business. But it's also unfair if companies are given an inaccurate impression of what customers on balance actually think about the matter.

> If you don't believe in free speech, just say it. Say you don't want free speech, free assembly, free religion, and the free press. Don't cry about hurt feelings, though. That's what children do.

It comes across that you have decided what GP's values really are, and are trying to extract a confession through bullying. This is not a productive mode of discourse.

You seem to be done editing this finally, so I'll quote (in case you edit it again) and respond:

> When your opponent plays dirty, when your figureheads get killed or nearly killed, why uphold the rules?

The Constitution wasn't shredded after Lincoln's assassination, Kennedy's, the attempt on Reagan. Why shred it now? You either believe in the principles, or you do not. If you don't, just admit it instead of complaining about hurt feelings or people playing dirty. Be an adult.

Damn, you managed to edit it while I was typing that, but the irony in this is rich:

> actively seeks to get you fired from your job

The Vice President of the United States is calling for people to be fired for speech. Again, you either believe in the freedom of speech or you don't. It's very clear that you do not. So again, be an adult. Admit that your position is an unprincipled one and based on feelings rather than thought.

EDIT: Removed "or Roosevelt" from attempted assassinations, he was the former president, not the sitting president, at the time.

> If it did, my post above wouldn't be at -4, while the inflammatory answer above is still in the black.

Ah ok, so only your right to free speech is important and no one is allowed to react negatively to it and have their own free speech. Thanks for making that clear.

This basically sums it up.

The right was upset that free speech worked both ways.

They are now enforcing that grievance with government power.

> while the inflammatory answer above is still in the black.

Which answer are you referring to?

I don't know though, maybe going from downvotes to making assumptions about something like 50m people is a bit of a stretch? And for what it's worth, I upvoted it, and I would certainly fall under "the left"