3 ms·

Freedom of speech is only relevant to government and public spaces, shareholders of google may impose restrictions they deem appropriate. EDIT: Wtf is wrong wi

• toomuchtodo 9y ago
  > shareholders of google may impose restrictions they deem appropriate. As may the government through statute. This is simply a matter of the constitution not going far enough, and additional law needed to prevent employment termination from expression not deemed "in fashion".
  • RaleyField 9y ago
    > This is simply a matter of the constitution not going far enough I don't have to hear obscenities on my private property. There's also freedom of association. It seems weird to me that one would be against authoritarianism when it comes to freedom of speech but be blindly for authoritarianism when it comes to association. I won't and can't judge whether the firing of that googler was justified but shareholders of google should have the right to fire whoever they bloody want.
    • toomuchtodo 9y ago
      > I won't and can't judge whether the firing of that googler was justified but shareholders of google should have the right to fire whoever they bloody want. Would you hold the same argument if I decided to acquire 51% of Google stock and fire all female employees? Or just the ones that decided to exercise their free speech? What shareholders wants comes second to government regulations to protect workers, for good reason.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]