> Do we want a world where a few folks can research random corporate CEOs, dig up something to stir up the mob, then end up getting him fired?

An alternate moral frame for the same concept: do we want a world where social pressure can be used to make particular political actions risky for people who are otherwise immune to or insulated from risk? There are precious few other options for discouraging wealthy, influential people from disproportionately wielding their wealth and influence in the service of reactionary ends.

When it comes down to it, I think Eich's supporters and detractors mostly differ on where the line should be drawn, not on whether there should be a line at all. There is unquestionably some level of private expressive action by a CEO that would be almost universally acknowledged as incompatible with holding the position.

If it were to turn out that Tim Cook was a die-hard white supremacist who had donated repeatedly to the cause and appeared on video speaking passionately about the need to ethnically cleanse the United States, I think you'd have only a tiny fraction of holdouts defending him on the basis of free speech. Similarly, if the CEO of BP was ousted for being critical of the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, I think you'd hear rights-based arguments against it from people who reject such arguments for Eich.