[KorematsuFred]

You have to see this with two lenses. Free speech is always about freedom from government control. Your employer can put whatever restriction on your speech that they so desire even outside of your workplace. In that sense famous people do have less freedom. For example basketball players promoting Nike can't wear any other shoes publicly.

Second case is of government putting those restrictions on you. Can public school put such restrictions on students ? I do not know and I am not familiar with this case.

[unanswered]

> Free speech is always about freedom from government control.

You are confusing "free speech" and "the First Amendment". Free speech has nothing to do with government; it's a generally applicable concept. The First Amendment specifies a requirement for the government to respect freedom of speech. That wouldn't even make sense if freedom of speech weren't a general concept.

[KorematsuFred]

> That wouldn't even make sense if freedom of speech weren't a general concept.

Free speech as a general concept is irrelevant in the eyes of law unless you have some specific law governing the specific scenarios. (Employees being punished for how they voted in general election.)

Free speech could be a virtue but it is a virtue like "not lying". It is perfectly legal to lie in many circumstances.

[unanswered]

Sorry, what does this comment have to do with anything?

I was responding to the claim "Free speech is always about freedom from government control", emphasis mine. Where did "in the eyes of law" come from? How is this contributing to the conversation?

It's okay to just admit that someone else's clarification was helpful and move on. You don't have to add irrelevant, non-clarifying addenda in order to seem like the more knowledgeable party.

[walshemj]

Tell that to Cristiano Ronaldo who dissed Coca Cola at the Euros.

The cynic in me think he might have his own brand of flavored water to launch.