We're not talking social stigma; we're talking about someone being fired, having their financial situation put in jeopardy because of inadequate worker protections.

If you think that's okay because of the views this engineer holds, you're a terrible human being.

It's not exactly clear from your comments so I'll just ask: is an employer ever justified in firing an employee for expressing their viewpoint?

I have to err on the side of caution and say no, just as an employer can't fire someone for their religious beliefs (which are arguably just as inflaming as the viewpoints people take issue with in this thread).

No right is unlimited, even if it's in the constitution.

For example, libel, slander, and harassment may all take the form of "speech" but are unquestionably firing offenses. Those are also criminal offenses because the balance of harms swings away from the person who's free speech rights might be violated, toward the person who's own rights are being violated due to the exercise of free speech itself.

As that old adage goes: My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

Unlike in many countries, in US in most states employment is "at-will" this sounds nice and friendly but it means officially they can let the employee go for any reason at any time unless that reason is one of discrimination due to a limited set of categories. Of course people are discriminated all the time based on religion, race, sexual preferences, age, gender etc, it is just that is not the official reason. It can always be molded into some "performance review", "downsizing", "business goals" etc. kind of thing. Proving otherwise requires an expensive lawsuit looking for patterns over a longer period of time and candidates or requires someone to blow the whistle and say "oh when the CEO say 'culture fit' we really mean they are of a wrong race or gender, everyone knows that around here..."

You can't be let go for being a whistleblower or someone who wants to improve hiring practices. The author has grounds for a lawsuit and was likely fired illegally.

But they can always find another reason to let him go. "Restructuring" or some similar thing would work. They just fired him, I presume the lawyers looked at it and probably didn't see much of a risk.

Doesn't pass the sniff test. His memo was open, notorious, and even received a response from senior management.

More likely than the lawyers saying the firing was legal, is that Google decided the cost of an illegal firing was less than the cost of keeping him onboard.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

I guess you don't work in the United States? Because it's certainly fine for him to be fired for this.

the page you refer to hardly makes it look so cut and dry. how would California's exemptions to at will employment factor into this situation? >http://www.hullmcguire.com/pdf/Hull%20McGuire%20-%20Californ...

Nice catch ;) The "implied contract" at-will exception in CA in recent years can be avoided by specific language and precautions in your contract. So yes, theoretically a former employee can sue and win for unjust termination, but practically speaking this never happens, particularly for large, careful employers.

Nah, the employee blackened the eye of the company he works for, potentially causing monetary loss. As a result of the employees controversial memo, the company deemed it necessary to terminate the employee to prevent any additional costs incurred with keeping him on. He's free to spew whatever nonsense he wanto, just like his employer is free to prevent themselves from losing money. :)

The devil's advocate says that there are many opinions that you would disagree should be fireable.

It's illegal to fire people over their politics, and that's clearly what happened here.

(1) It's not illegal to fire someone for their politics (it's not one of the enumerated protected classes under federal employment laws anti-discrimination law at least), and (2) it's not "clearly" what happened here -- arguably sure, but there are other ways to see it.

In fact regarding (1) CA state law adds a protected class "Political activities or affiliations", http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employment...

Oh shit. You're right; I thought for sure I read otherwise. My mistake. As my sibling commenter notes, it is apparently illegal in CA.

Ah yes, I totally forgot that "males are less neurotic and have more drive than females". Silly me. Good luck finding any women to work with you when you spew such nonsense. Aka creating a toxic work place

Many psychological studies have confirmed psychological differences between men and women. It is not toxic to discuss these findings.

It seems like half of this debate is utterly preoccupied with misrepresenting the other half. I guess the social justice position is too weak and it's adherents lacking in integrity.

No, this is one of the problems we have in society today is this misunderstanding of Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction

Not just from government censorship, but from SOCIETY censorship as well

Governments, at least Western Government, are a reflection of society in general often delayed by a generation or so. As such if society deems fit to Censor something often that translates into the government censoring the same thing just a few year later.

We must be always mindful of threats to free speech not just from government but from society at large.

It is incumbent upon everyone to respect everyone else's freedom of expression, individually

FoS so far as the U.S. Constitution defines it has nothing to do with society. It's all about government.

I fail to understand what the US Constitution has to do with this conversation.

The US Constitution is a document that outlines what powers the people of the US have granted to the Federal government, it has no bearing on what I am talking about

Uh... Amendment #1 deals with FoS. Sentences 2 and 3 of your post talk about Government AND Society. The first amendment doesn't give a rat's ass about what society thinks. Its a restriction only on the government.

You are the one that brought up the US constitution, the OP was talking about freedom of speech as a principle. It is hardly surprising that the US constitution would only apply FoS to the government, since that is what it is trying to define, but the principle of FoS can apply to society as much as anything else.

Freedom of Speech is a principle. It has a value on it's own. I wish more people would see that.

Who's tradition are you using for that society argument?

It sounds like a facile reading of Mills, without ever going to the back half where he talks about valid reasons for a society to put pressure on an individual, but I've been more on the Federalist papers this year for obvious reasons.

To add to this, the ex-Googler is still able to express his speech, just not under the private platform of Google. This would be a far different and more contentious case if Google fired an employee for their free speech under a personal website and not a company website.

The freedom of speech in the constitution protects you from government persecution.

But the idea is bigger than the constitution. I think it is best expressed in The Friends of Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

This is a deep idea. I think it is virtuous.

Silence no ideas.

the 1st amendment of the constitution is a prohibition of the federal government enacting a law that limits freedom of religion, expression, or association.

freedom of speech is a far more general moral principle and social norm. we ought not conflate the two and there is much more utility in discussing the more general case of freedom of speech and not the narrower more legalistic case of the 1st amendment.

No. Freedom of speech is a social convention, and only secondarily a matter of law. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/29/against-signal-boosting...