I think this is very true. However, I think it shares a lot of the problems that reasoning about "rights" often does. The term "right" seems to be ill-defined

I think this is very true. However, I think it shares a lot of the problems that reasoning about "rights" often does. The term "right" seems to be ill-defined as it is used in public discourse so it is often useful to talk about rights in terms of the obligations and constraints they imply. In the example of the right to free speech (as understood by US law) constrains the government from making determinations about the use of many of its unique powers (police power, power to tax, authority over public fora) on the basis of the content of what someone says (within certain limits). There are other powers about whose use they can make determinations on the basis of someones speech (like the hiring of speakers for government sponsored events). In the US there are also (some? state?) laws constraining private employers from engaging in certain behavior in reprisal for the content of speech made by employees in some circumstances (e.g. Employee usually can't be fired for participating in a gay pride event (as long as they aren't wearing their company uniform or otherwise indicating that they are speaking for their employer, etc. etc.)). This too probably falls within the scope of what's meant by the right free speech. I'm no expert in law, but I believe their are specific exceptions made to this constraint on employer power for decisions about officers of a corporation. I gather that this comic is aimed, at least in part, at those who are objection to the treatment of Brendan Eich. And I think it is fair to say that his right to free speech as understood by the US government has not been violated. But governments are not the only entities who can constrain themselves from various kinds of actions on the basis of someones speech. As an individual I can (and probably should) constrain myself from punching people on the basis of what they say. I can also constrain myself from from engaging in incivility on the basis of the contents of other peoples speech, and maybe I should. But here it starts to become less clear. Exactly what kinds of behavior should be constrained if I personally want to be supportive of other peoples right to free speech is a little unclear both for me personally and for us as a society. I think that what people are principally objecting to with regard to the treament of Brendan Eich is Mozilla's and the Internet Community's failure to constrain themselves in various ways. These people (and I count myself among them) feel that if I try to get someone fired on the basis their political speech (regardless of how offensive I find it) from a job which is not related (I know some will object here in the case of Brendan Eich) to the content of that speech, then they are acting in a manner that is not supportive of the right to Fee Speech. I hope this will be helpful in establishing a bit of mutual understanding.