If you ran a company, would you make sure that none of your employees ever face consequences for expressing their opinions outside of work?

I would try. It would be almost impossible in the current climate though, so I would be unlikely to succeed given that I myself could be removed over my position as soon as someone says something distasteful and I'm accused of either supporting it or creating a hostile environment for other employees. But the world I want to live in is one where employers take no action whatsoever for opinions expressed off the clock.

So ideally you'd have no qualms with a preschool teacher who blogs about how sex with children is perfectly fine in their spare time?

Or an employee who regularly publishes manifestos on why people of certain skin colors should be murdered and exterminated?

These are extreme examples of course, but you are saying that ideally no one should experience any consequences for expressing any opinion outside of work.

Ideally, yes.

It's not that they should face no consequences - they should face consequences in the circles in which they express those views, ideally in the form of people disagreeing with them, but possibly also wanting to dissociate with them. If they try to keep those views out of the classroom, I don't have a problem with it.

In the classroom, you are the instrument of a consensus view. You must do your job. If you do it well, that's great. Your views outside the classroom should be irrelevant, and I can't help but notice that a lot of the time when people get in trouble for their views outside of work, it's because someone de-anonymised them.

We cannot have a world where people's actual opinions are forced to be equal to those their employers would be comfortable with. Your extreme examples are extreme indeed, but there are many examples, particularly in authoritarian regimes, where the extreme view is the correct one. So extreme-ness is not a good metric for whether views should be allowed or not.

I think the solution for everyone is to stay silent, and to discuss their views anonymously online. Their views will still have force at the ballot box - as they did at the last election (as much as I did not like the outcome, it was evidence that social shaming has limited power at changing how people vote). We should be suspicious of attempts to de-anonymise the internet.

Basically, dissent is important. So important that it is worth tolerating bad views to ensure dissent is not suppressed when it is needed.

Everyone who pictures the cancel-culture norms resulting in some sort of paradise where everyone believes nice things are delusional, they are simply ceding power to those who will use it for personal gain, and giving the currently powerful the tools to to cement that power.

That's fair, and thanks for the explanation. I couldn't disagree more but that's normal.

In this extreme example of mine, would you be happy as a parent to have your children in this teacher's classroom? Would you be taking part in a free speech suppressing pitchfork mob if you were to call the school and express your opinion that you don't want your child to be taught by a pedophile?

It's completely inappropriate that you use such extreme examples in a thread about RMS. Implicitly you link him to this. I would fire you...

The link is entirely of your making, I even explicitly stated that I'm using an extreme example.

That's true but something always sticks.