When people say freedom in the US it tends to be people free to be assholes to their fellow countrymen.
Edit: I have freedom from not being shot in the face in Costco too! That's my favourite freedom.
And why was my colleague fired? Surely his speech was protected?
From the Verge[1]: Section 127 of the Communications Act makes it an offense to send public messages of a “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character,”
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offens...
You think that's ok? One of them for reference:
"kill yourself before I do; rape is the last of your worries; I’ve just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried.”
Do I think offensive, nasty, hateful speech is free speech? Absolutely.
Here's an example of one that I think is an egregious violation of the principle of free speech: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-...
Any absolutist position is a problem. This is fairly balanced and the outcome is proportionate.
We are not granted rights by the Government. We have natural rights and they are not to be infringed by the Government. That's how our Constitution is supposed to work and that's why we left England in the first place.
But the fact is, the question of whether speech is or is not allowed is far too often a matter of commercial viability rather than objective political value. Look no further than Kanye West being “cancelled” only after a long history of racism and idiotic remarks. The profitability of his Yeezy shoes bought him a lot more free speech than you or I would ever be granted.
Couple that with the fact that healthcare is usually at the mercy of your employer, and very few people in the U.S. truly have the liberty to say what they really think. And before you say there’s nothing worth saying which you would be fired for, ask yourself how long you could maintain good graces if you were known to be promoting unionization.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_president_of...
Well did he sue? That's the only way he can get the government involved and see if his speech is protected or not.
Edit: Do the down voters have problems understanding basic logic? The government can't protect anybody's free speech if they haven't been informed about a potential violation. I know most hackers think that the government is God, but they are neither all-seeing nor all-knowing. If you get fired in a way that violates your freedom of speech or violates labour rights, you have to sue and at least get the government involved before you complain about not having any rights.
So did he or she sue?