[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.