[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.