Exercising free speech can have social consequences. You're free to advocate for the legalization of necrophilia; others are free to criticize you and disagree with you (exercising their own free speech) or shun you (exercising their freedom of association).

Legal consequences imply non-free speech; employment consequences are more complicated.

edit: Responding to dead response; not gonna vouch for you again with that attitude...

Every freedom has consequences. You've got the right to bear arms, but you can shoot yourself in the foot. You've got the freedom to move about the country, but you can miss your sister's wedding if you're in another state. You've got the freedom to vote, but your elected politician won't always vote in the way you'd like. You've got the right to drink and smoke, but you might get cancer or other diseases. You've got the right to piss off your friends by spouting off hot takes, and you might lose those friends if they don't like what you have to say.

But we aren't talking about necrophilia. It is about people who may work in an environment that is 95% Democrat being attacked as racists or whatever because they have a different political view.

The issue isn't exactly about free speech but discrimination. And this happens in a million other ways too: being overweight, having a certain accent, being shorter than average. The fact that people have to resort to a "free speech" defence is indicative of the problem. And, of course, there will be "consequences"...no-one doubts that are consequences for not being like other people.

One of the alleged opinions, "deport all Muslims," advocates for discrimination. As I said, employment consequences are complicated, and that's especially true when the employer is a public school. But, that isn't just a "different political view," it's evidence that you're predisposed towards... discrimination. If you make such statements in public, and you interview and don't hire a qualified Muslim who applies for a job at your place of employment, you've provided that applicant ammunition for a discrimination lawsuit. For that reason, it behooves a company to fire employees who make such statements in public.

I don't believe that is what she said. You are making the point that I say should be avoided: you believe she said one thing, so that must make her an X, and Xs are dangerous...you have no idea.

And if someone is discriminating against another person in hiring (btw, inevitable...height/weight/accent, it is basically impossible to remove this, people are fairly safe on religion because no-one can tell what religion another person is without asking) then that is enough. There is no need to examine the person's statements and try to work out how they would behave in a hypothetical example (doing this is discriminating...you aren't judging a person on their actions but how you believe they would act in a hypothetical you invent...would you like to be judged this way?).

> I don't believe that is what she said. You are making the point that I say should be avoided: you believe she said one thing, so that must make her an X, and Xs are dangerous...you have no idea.

No, please read my comment more carefully, because I said none of that.

I don't believe that she did or didn't say anything. I said "alleged" and meant it -- I've read exactly one article about this person and never heard of her before.

I said that having a post like that under one's name could be used as evidence against their employer in the case of a Title VII claim. Not that it would definitely indicate that the poster is racist; not that the poster is "dangerous" -- I'm said that the poster could reasonably be viewed as a legal liability to their employer.

> you aren't judging a person on their actions but how you believe they would act in a hypothetical you invent...would you like to be judged this way?

Another example of non-free speech: if you admit to having done a crime, that will be used against you in court (note, the admission itself is not a crime -- but it is evidence). If you express intent to do a crime, and somebody alleges that the same crime happened, and you're placed at the scene of the alleged crime, then your expression of intent will be used against you in court. Whether or not I want that to happen to me is irrelevant. That's how the legal system works.

Political party is a personal choice and thus not a protected class.

Freedom of association permits us to choose who we do and do not associate with based on that individual's own choices.

In many jurisdictions, political affiliation/activity is protected. [1] It looks like PA has had a couple cases on the matter, one offering protection and a more recent one limiting the first case to its facts (i.e., saying it is not precedential anymore). Details on page 319.

1: https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/empspeech.pdf

PA courts determined that the previous 1983 ruling (protecting political party from employer termination) is not good law, and will not use it as precedence again.

There are laws in place to prevent employers from coercing employees into political action - i.e. you won't get your annual bonus unless you donate to this political candidate - but these are protections from extortion, and not exceptions to the general rule that political party is not a protected class.

Somewhat ironically California considers political affiliations a protected class.

California protects employees from the threat of employers trying to force them into taking political action - i.e. you need to donate to a political candidate or attend a political event or be fired. It doesn't interfere with freedom of association for political actions taken by the employee independent of threat, such as being fired after making islamophobic comments.

I am not talking about protected classes (a concept which only exists in the US, and therefore isn't useful generally). The point is about discrimination, which will occur irregardless of what laws you pass.

Discrimination is a broad term that can apply to the type of bread you eat in a sandwich.

When it comes to discrimination of employees by employers, then the protected classes, personal choice, and freedom of association are highly relevant irrespective of country.

You don't have to talk about politics at work. Heck, you may have even heard never to bring up politics or religion. Because of consequences.

Yes, that is my point. This is just another way for people to discriminate against people who aren't "on their team". It is why civil organizations, like the Freemasons, don't allow people to talk about politics or religion. Just personally, I am not sure why other people are interested either.

Freedom of speech means that you can express any opinion civilly in a public forum without being persecuted for such speech. It does not mean you won’t get fired for saying something racist, and importantly it means that there are restrictions on speech that are not opinions or expressed civilly, such as the famous “yelling fire in a crowded theater” example.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected under the first amendment. That phrase came out of a 1919 SCOTUS ruling[0]. The limitations on speech were slowly restored over the next 50 years, with Brandenburg v Ohio[1] (1969) ultimately blocking making speech illegal.

The important distinction is that you can be punished under the law for the intent + consequences of speech. For the fire example, if no one reacted at all to me yelling "Fire!", the state could not go after me. Now, if I caused a stampede or other behavior from those in the theater, I could be sued for various things (manslaughter if someone died, criminal mischief, or disturbing the peace).

It's also the same reason the government can go after mob bosses for hiring a hitman to kill someone. They just said something (like, "take that guy out"), which is just speech. But if the actions that resulted in the speech can be directly connected, you can get in trouble for it.

EDIT: To make clear here, intent and consequences matter here. It's why you rarely see cases against speech brought, as intent must also be clear and provable in court.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Then go to a theater and yell “Fire” and see how it goes. You’ll be arrested.

Prosecuted, no. Persecuted? You certainly might be.

Which would be others exercising their freedom of speech as well, or in the case of her employer, freedom of association.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Speech is meaningless if it has zero consequences. Freedom of speech isn't absolute. I don't necessarily think freedom of speech should necessarily be the most important consideration if other important values are involved.

It's about Government's ability to restrict or punish free speech, for example, by making you disappear (e.g. China per Hong Kong and Uighur brainwashing, Saudi Arabia bone-sawing journalists).

There can be, and are, private consequences to speech. I may not invite you back for dinner for example, other consequences may be more impactful.