"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from being punished for saying things" I'm sorry but there's no universe in which this makes any sense.
Either we say that people are free to express their opinions, or we punish people for saying things we don't like. Can't have both at the same time.
The other guy used the argument "but the US constitution guarantees freedom of speech" yeah so does North Korean, argument invalid.
I don't understand why this step "if people can be punished for saying something then they don't have freedom of speech" isn't an obvious logical statement.
What do you mean by "punished"? You have the right to say whatever you want just like I have the right to not listen to what you're saying, not to employ you, not buy goods/services from you and to encourage my friends to do the same (we're both exercising our right to the freedom of speech).
> but the US constitution guarantees freedom of speech" yeah so does North Korean, argument invalid.
Well courts in the US are somewhat independent and generally tend to usually adhere to that part of the US constitution when making decisions. North Korean courts? Not so much... Obviously it's a spectrum since the world is not black and white but I really don't quite understand what are you trying to say.
Are you seriously claiming that you don't see a fundamental difference between the US and North Korea in this case? Or do you just want someone to spend their time compiling a list of Supreme Court decisions relating to freedom of speech?
This is the problem because 99% of people are effectively dependent on their employers, and there's huge power imbalance between employers and employees.
In Europe there's a specific list of reasons which can result in work contract termination. This means that the employer cannot fire me just because I posted on Facebook "vote for party X for better future". This means that I feel free to post this because I know nobody will ruin my life over that.
In most US states there's a specific list of reasons why people cannot be fired - which means they can be fired for all other reasons, and "posting on Facebook that you support given party" does not belong to that list, which means that you can be fired for that, which effectively makes you think twice before you say things publicly.
I really don't think that "you don't go to jail but you have your life ruined by being fired and becoming unemployable" is such a fantastic deal and an example of freedom of speech.
> and there's huge power imbalance between employers and employees
That's the real issue, however fundamentally I don't really see an issue if saying certain things publicly makes you effectively unemployable.
> In Europe there's a specific list of reasons which can result in work contract termination.
It varies by country but I'm not sure it applies to illegal/banned speech? Also in Europe you can be convicted and fined for quoting the Hadith while not being a Muslim* and the ECHR doesn't see a problem with that (which unfortunately proves that "freedom of speech" is just not a thing in Europe).
Germany is putting people in prison (for as long as 5 years) just for their speech (as false and repulsive as it might be. How is that better than making those people "unemployable"? Which probably wouldn't even be the case since there (unfortunately) are still plenty of people who'd hire nazi apologists (both in US and Europe).
> is such a fantastic deal and an example of freedom of speech.
IMHO it really depends on what opinions exactly did you express. Again I don't see how is it any fairer to impose your personal controversial views on your employer (even if indirectly).
You are still failing to understand that nobody is prosecuted for what they say in the US. What is prosecuted is the damages incurred from what is said, such as damage to reputation in the case of defamation or physical/financial harm in the case of false marketing.
If you can't understand that, you need to go back and do your homework before you continuing discussing freedom of speech.
