To me this (news not your comment) sounds like a very slippery slope. What happened to freedom of speech? And who is to decide what is "political" what is not?
As long as speech is not offensive, I think it should be protected.
As long as speech is not offensive, I think it should be protected.
Speech that isn’t offensive usually doesn’t need protection.
A person's privilege to speak out about issues facing them in the course of their work is to be protected, irrespective of it being offensive.
I would say that an employer that prohibits free exchange of ideas is not "open minded". I would not want to work for such an employer, without getting paid extra for having to work under such dire circumstances.
It could also be phrased in terms of "Everyone has a right to decline to talk politics". If people agree to talk politics I don't see problem, except of course it can lead to lower productivity perhaps.
So then maybe all non-work-related speech should be forbidden? That just sounds inhumane.
It still exists. Gitlab does not infringe on your freedom of speech. The government does.
Anything you agree with some entity that isn’t the government doesn’t count as infringing your freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is a narrow legal thing. It’s not “I can say what I want when I want it”.