I'm not sure the Venn diagram overlaps in the way you think it does. If someone points out to you that someone getting fired from their company for something th

I'm not sure the Venn diagram overlaps in the way you think it does. If someone points out to you that someone getting fired from their company for something they said is not a government infringement of free speech, that doesn't necessarily mean they don't think it's an important event. Just that the government didn't and maybe can't have anything to do with it. You have to know what direction you're pointed in to start talking about making a difference. In this particular situation, I'd say: - China is wrong to suppress free expression of HKers, and furthermore I believe it's incumbent upon HKers to assert their, as I see it through the lens of my culture, natural born right to that expression. - Blizzard and the NBA are wrong to discourage the expression of its employees or associates on this particular matter (supporting another culture asserting values like our own), but those harmed do not have the same recourse as a citizen would against their government (with the obvious exceptions of protected classes, which I'm not sure applies here, IANAL). There is only market recourse, aka boycott⁎, or potentially government regulation to protect political speech in the workplace (not sure if that already exists, but it sounds like a dangerous path to me as all kinds of wacky shit could be claimed to be political). ⁎ It strikes me that an embargo or sanction is a kind of political boycott, is that what you'd like to see? Because I'm not outright opposed to a government curtailing business with other governments that refuse to share foundational values. But this is a tricky road too because it basically leads to the kinds of debates like those made to refuse service to PoC or LGBT communities. In the US we have the SCOTUS to help decide those questions, what is the global analogue?