This line of reasoning never made sense to me. Free speech is both a legal and a cultural issue. A modern society cannot credibly claim to be free on legal grounds alone. Yeah, the government won't put me in prison or fine me, but if I get fired for being a staunch liberal (or conservative) then I'm not really free, am I? This doesn't just apply to rich athletes -- in most organizations in SF I would not feel particularly safe expressing what seem to me fairly moderate views.
Depriving people of their livelihood for expressing political views is absolutely a free speech issue. Perhaps not in a legal/constitutional sense, but a cultural sense for sure. There were plenty of stretches in the Soviet Union where they wouldn't imprison you, but would fire you for a poorly timed political joke. Starting down that cultural slope is a really bad idea.
Lots of things are legal but maybe not what we want. I'd say a working culture where having the wrong political opinion can get you fired is definitely one of them.
There is no shield in the first Amendment.
Just because it is legal to say does not mean it should be said.
The shield is not there because there needs to be checks and balances on speech. While we do see unfortunate outcomes, review them. All those people had options.
People often cite the Mozilla event. It is not so often mentioned how a lot of people were going to leave.
Being a leader, in that example, carries with it some implications. People do not blindly follow in enough numbers to be a concern.
These are human dynamics. Legislating them, and or expecting people to deal en mass with others to the degree needed here is impractical.
There are risks and rewards in all aspects of life, very few sure things. We are nowhere near a state of society where it is possible to consider otherwise.
I don't think free speech is the issue here. There's a difference between expressing your views on your own time and involving the company that you work for to adopt those views. We've all seen the disclaimers that people put on their twitter profiles and blogs distancing their personal views from the companies they work for. Such a disclaimer was not issued here. Colin involved the 49ers Franchise and the NFL in his political views. He used their broadcasts to send out his message. Not all the owners necessarily sympathized with his views, especially when it started bringing negative attention to their business. In that regard, I don't think it's all that surprising that it cost him his job.
Note also that there are plenty of current NFL players who express the same sentiments as Colin on social media and in interviews, and they still have their jobs.
People are people, and they're free to act however they want, including not liking you for what you say. As long as they are not harming you or infringing your rights, then they are within their rights to do so. This is the price for the freedom you have to also not associate with people you don't like.
We already have anti-discrimination laws and protections but what you seem to be asking for is government to limit other rights and freedoms to protect you "culturally"? Do you not see how that is dangerous and far worse?
You are allowed to say things. You are assuming responsibility for, i.e. accepting the consequences of, your right to say things.]
Society is then free to cast you out if you say hateful things. You say this society is not free. This is meaningless to this society, it has chosen to operate on assumptions which are fundamentally incompatible with your behaviour.
In the other hand I think in most of Europe gag orders are much more restricted in scope and application than they are in the US.
First amendment seems to be interpreted broadly there, but not nearly as much as national security.
The only reasonable explanation is to have the politician be indebted no mater who it happens to be.
And the Kaepernick issue can't be a mere employee-employer issue if the president claims to have gotten him fired by threatening the NFL with brand destruction[1].
And if the same group then calls the press the "enemy of the people" but defends receiving enormous donations as devotion to free speech seems, it seems disingenuous.
If, instead of you home country, say Saudi Arabia were doing these things, we would say they making great steps towards freedom.
* https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/aufgaben/rechtsgrundlagen...
Enjoy.
Care to provide let's say 2 such examples ?
https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/17/europes-free-speech-apo...
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/07/17113/
https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/01/13/germany-is-silen...
> In 2015, France’s highest court upheld the criminal conviction of 12 pro-Palestinian activists for violating restrictions against hate speech. Their crime? Wearing T-shirts that advocated a boycott of Israel — “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel,”
Professionally "banned" is not a free speech issue in the slightest. Athletes can do whatever they want, however they are still employees and if they want to enjoy their multi-million dollar salaries then they will need to follow the rules of their employer and the sports leagues. You will not be punished by the government for what you say, but you are not entitled to a job without consequences either.