[wonderzombie]

Whose free speech was violated? Free speech doesn't mean the freedom from consequences or criticism. It means the exact opposite! He's free to speak as he likes and donate as he likes, and everyone else is free to exercise their own rights to free speech. That's how it freaking works.

There's no right to be a CEO, either. I wouldn't dispute a racist's right to speak as they like, but free speech doesn't mean turning a blind eye to bigotry and prejudice. Views are not somehow exempt from criticism just because they are sincerely held.

[izacus]

Erm no... if you have to be afraid for your job, your career prospects, your house or your family then your have NO free speech, no matter what some paper somewhere says.

Economic pressure was used to great success in (socialistic) countries like mine to curtail free speech (even though there was a "free speech" law). And it looked exactly like this - if you had an unpopular opinion, you'd just be marked as "unfit for leadership position", "unfit for advancement", "we cannot have someone going to church as our CEO", your children would get scholarship denied, etc.

You know... consequences. The definition of free speech is the ability to voice political opinion without fear. Haven't you learned anything from cold war?

[wonderzombie]

Is he afraid for his house and family? Mind you, I believe death threats in any situation are unwarranted and despicable. This is not the least bit unique to Eich's situation. It's a much larger problem we as a society have yet to address.

The analogy to socialism is vastly overstating the problem, and a cheeky way to deny Eich's critics' freedom of criticism. A sincerely held belief is not a shield against criticism, and free speech isn't absolute. It never has been.

The fact is that free speech means people are free to disagree en masse when they find a view abhorrent. A pro-slavery, misogynist, racist, or anti-interracial-marriage individual has a right to their views. They don't have a right to avoid social censure when their views are beyond the pale. And that's exactly what happened here.

[finder83]

His free speech was clearly violated, by the public, slanderous nature in which it was handled. I completely agree if his views don't fit within the organization that he should not have been appointed CEO or possibly removed, but to slander someone for their views is completely unacceptable.

Criticism is one thing, aggressive oppression is another.

[wonderzombie]

Oppression? Oppression implies he was denied a right. Being a CEO of a corporation is not a right, especially considering that a CEO is a very public figure.

Now, if he got blackballed across the industry, I'd be there with you. But that's not a foregone conclusion by any means.

I don't understand what you mean by slander. Go look at the interviews he gave. If his views in 2014 are any different from his views in 2008, he gave no indication whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact.