Yes the point of our founding documents is exactly to outline a set of rights that citizens collectively enjoy and which shall not be impinged upon. It's not simply the classic "government vs private" dichotomy. We've had freedom of expression cases hit the supreme court related to what students at a public school can wear on a t-shirt. Clearly a scenario much more complex than the government explicitly impinging upon freedom of expression.

> If you have an issue with your employer, find a new job.

I used to say that too. But there's a catch. Our government sets economic policy. Economic policy governs citizens' ability to find and obtain work, ultimately their ability to prosper. If the economic policy is "anything goes" then we will see and have seen rise of economic machines that suppress freedom of expression in the service of increasing shareholder value. The questions I think we should be asking is "does this make sense?" and, "have the goals outlined in the constitution been effectively achieved?". If government has enacted policy that yields an environment where people are not actually free to express themselves, is this not a failure of government to secure those basic freedoms?

I'd be a lot more comfortable telling people not to bother with oppressive employers if, for example, we had a concept of UBI so that people could feasibly sustain themselves in absence of a private economic machine writing their paycheck.

Public schools are government-funded, therefore the bill of rights is at play. Your private employer can absolutely fire you for the contents of your t-shirt if they so choose, assuming it has nothing to do with protected classes/speech or anything like that.

Here is some reading on this topic: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...

I know the details. I think you're missing my point. I'm challenging the status quo legal interpretation of the extent to which the first amendment is applicable. I'm arguing that regardless of the exact letter of the language in the bill of rights, we are experiencing an environment whereby individuals are unable to freely express themselves without real threat to their livelihood and that it is in the interest of a functional democracy to preserve and protect such a right. I believe this is the government's concern because a) the government decides economic policy, and so we are responsible for the effects of e.g. a capitalist/private-sector-driven economy. If such a choice is having the effect of impingement of freedom of expression, it matters little whether the government paid for the institution directly or not. We subsidize private institutions as a society and we are responsible for and have power over that decision. And b) the spirit of the bill of rights is not being upheld. The whole point of the bill of rights is a realization that in order for a society built on civil liberty and freedom to thrive, there must be limits to the power any institution has to stifle said freedoms. That the law of the land must protect those freedoms for all people, full stop.

In short, I am aware of the status quo but I think interpretation is ripe for a modern revamp given trends over the last decade.

Why are you against the rights of a private company to act as they wish? Are you some kind of commie?

I’m not against private company rights. I’m arguing that we should more liberally apply the notion of protected speech to the workplace because reality warrants it. I think that is rather different than a government owned and operated labor sector.