There were several people gloating over the idea that he had ruined his career, several people insinuating that violence against him would be acceptable, several people claiming that he would never work in the valley again, and several people (some self-identified managers) proudly stating that they had personal blacklists for whoever agreed with him.

To be blunt, it kinda does.

Before, the major actor that could issue genuine consequences for speech was the state. The word "Consequences" in the statement "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences", means a punch to the face or a stern shaming from townsfolk. You got on with it, kept doing your job, continued to live your life.

When the state objected to your speech, it would end your life, it would destroy you.

But fast forward to today. Suddenly loud demographics of people have the ability to destroy you in the long term, destroy your working prospects, smear your reputation, mark you as unhireable, harass you everywhere. State level consequences. It's no longer a punch to the face in a bar for obnoxious speech. It's no longer the "consequences" in "freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences". Those consequences are now state level. How meaningless would this statement be if it was "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from the state."

"You're free to talk, no one will stop you, but we the state still get to destroy your life." How meaningless is that?!

You say people shouldn't be vilified as an outcast. But that's what will happen!

Before, he'd have said it among his friends, who would dismiss it and forget his opinions the following morning.

He published his opinion, that Google's efforts that enabled thousands of his female peers to pursue careers there, are misguided and harmful, that some of his female coworkers are biologically unsuited to their jobs. He did it to himself.

He said nothing of the sort you're attributing to him here, yet here you are with the pitchfork. What brought this on him was the internet lynch mob condemning him as "anti-diversity" without taking the time to even look at the pictures he included in his memo, let alone read the damn thing.

He wasn't just using his position as a Google employee as a platform for ideological ranting. He was expressing concern over how (supposed) ideological bias was affecting working conditions and the effectiveness of the company. To my understanding, that kind of speech is specifically protected against consequences (or at least, protected from firing).

Curious if you feel Colin Kaepernick should have been fired and blacklisted for supporting Black Lives Matter? After all, it was only a consequence of free speech from his employers.

Colin wasn't fired.

He opted out of his contract - making himself a free agent.

http://www.49ers.com/news/article-2/Colin-Kaepernick-Opts-Ou...

This is like quitting your job and complaining you don't have a job.

That's not a fair comparison; Kaepernick would have been cut had he not opted out.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/31/john-lynch-4...

"We gave him the option, ‘You can opt out, we can release you, whatever.’ And he chose to opt out, but that was just a formality."

I think it's more complicated than that. They didn't get along - evidenced by the fact he gave up almost $15M in guarantees to opt-out.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/3/1/14599712/colin-kaepern...

There's a lot of other issues here - it's unfair to say he got "fired" because of what he did last year. He's been very bad lately - huge dropoff since he went to the SuperBowl.

I think the people signing worse quarterbacks than him are pointlessly making their teams worse. I didn't take a position on the Google firing above; I just pointed out that your employer can hold you accountable for things you say without violating your First Amendment rights.

http://review.chicagobooth.edu/magazine/winter-2014/how-gary...

Quarterbacks worse than him? SF had the second worst record in the league...

At this point he's being evaluated as a backup and teams are still passing on him. The other backup quarterbacks are not good. http://www.businessinsider.com/colin-kaepernick-backup-qb-ar...

That article offers good arguments not to pick him. Add to the fact a former starter is going to demand a greater salary, and his weaknesses will be more well known than, say, a rookie or someone who's always been a backup. At this point Colin has peaked and declined, and everyone knows it.

Edit - backups should be technically solid and be able to execute the same plays as the starter. Not flashy and unorthodox. When your starter is injured you don't want the whole team to have to change systems.

I don't think he should've been fired, no. But I also feel the NFL or team owners are within their rights as private citizens to not hire him. Does that make them racist? Sure. But being bigoted and supporting racist social policies in and of itself isn't inherently illegal.

> But being bigoted and supporting racist social policies in and of itself isn't inherently illegal.

And, as a consequence, the US now has an immature tantrum-throwing child as President with a GOP doing nothing but enabling his worst actions.

He wasn't fired or blacklisted for supporting BLM. His contract ran out and no one wants him because of his terrible performance of late. If it weren't for his political views no one would even be talking about him.

"Feel he should have been fired" and "Wouldn't throw a fit if he was fired" are different things.

Do I think this guy should have been fired? I dunno. Not sure. I need more context.

Am I upset he was fired? No. That's Google's choice, regardless of how good a choice it is or isn't.

> Do I think this guy should have been fired?

It betrayed a spectacular lack of common sense and judgement for someone in a senior[1] role - which is exactly where you'd want those in spades. Also made his working position untenable since a senior role is going to need to get along and interact with many people. Also, also, his utter disregard for evidence and inability to make logical arguments would give me great pause as to his usefulness as a senior engineer.

I'd have fired him first for being an idiot, second for his bullshit "scientism", and third having reprehensible views.

[1] Disclaimer: I don't know if "senior" within Google is the same as "VP" in banks, ie just a defacto title you get after a while rather than a mark of actual competency.

That is an is-ought argument. There is absolutely no good reason political views and free speech and can't, and shouldn't, be added as protected classes.

That would violate an employer's first amendment right to freedom of association. If a company finds your political views odious, they have no obligation to allow you on their property or give you money.