zlacker

>>claude+(OP)
I'd totally support the employees if they got fired or even cautioned for exercising their free speech rights. Amazon needs to get penalized if that's the case. Where it gets into the gray zone is when employees misuse company property and time to engage in activism. Like the Google Employee who used her access privileges to distribute messages supporting her position.

Personally I think we should draw a clear line between these two types of actions. When we don't do that, we weaken legitimate free speech.

>>jeswin+fi
You are in confusion, there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else.

Just to be very clear: I am in no way agreeing with Amazon, just correcting a confusion about the applicability of the US Constitution and amendments.

>>Adrian+Gi
That sort of conflation is defensible when someone actually says "First Amendment", but the parent was clearly talking about the fundumental human right to free speech that that first amendment imperfectly protects, not about a particular legal establishment of it.

>>a13692+PF
Amazon isn’t threatening the men with guns, so their natural right to free speech isn’t violated.

>>burrow+VK
So if someone criticizes the government, and it responds by saying "We're no longer going to enforce laws protecting this person; anyone who wants to burglarize their home, or rob or kill them, feel free to do so.", that doesn't qualify as violation of free speech as long as the government is not actively initiating or assisting such attacks?

(Genuine question; I obviously don't agree, but I'm curious as to what moral principles you're applying here.)