[VieElm]

I support the author and what the bank did is just absolutely wrong and outrageous, but I just want to clarify that this is not a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech refers to government restrictions on limiting the right to voice your opinion. The government wasn't involved and he didn't legally have to remove the tweet (but I would have removed the tweet as well if it threatened my job). I totally support the author, but this is not a freedom of speech problem. Sometimes we limit what we say because there can be negative consequences that have nothing to do with the government.

I recommend creating an anonymous Twitter account to remove negative pressure that can affect employment.

[summerdown2]

> I support the author and what the bank did is just absolutely wrong and outrageous, but I just want to clarify that this is not a freedom of speech issue.

I don't agree. In US terms, "Freedom of Speech" appears to be framed only in terms of the rights of someone relative to the government.

But in the UK, we don't have a first amendment, or even a written constitution. I would find it absolutely normal for someone to discuss freedom of speech issues about wider things than simply government overreach. In fact, the opposite is just as likely to be true: freedom of speech can be curtailed by things like private injunctions or the lack of space where it's safe to speak, which may be occuring due to lack of government action or regulation.

Freedom of Speech is a phrase that I've always thought has a wider application than it appears limited to in the US, where it seems mixed up with a lot of politics that don't appear anywhere else.

Anyway, just my opinion from the UK. I think this is very much something that can be discussed in terms of freedom of speech in the wider (non-US) sense, due to the power disparity of the actors being used (if true) to quash speech that would otherwise be freely available - and, given Greece is in Europe, I believe the author is right to frame it in those terms.

[marcosdumay]

> The government wasn't involved

About that, when somebody threatens to sue a person and that is a credible threat, it's because the government is involved.

The minimum guarantee of a democratic legal system is that for an innocent that phrase isn't a threat. If there is no guarantee, it's not a democratic system.

[notahacker]

Necessary conditions to ensure an innocent person need not feel threatened by the prospect of litigation include a time, money and irritation-free trial process and omniscient judges.

Your "minimum guarantee of a democratic legal system" is an impossibility, unless tort law is altogether abolished, and good luck seeking democratic approval for that...

[marcosdumay]

There are several ways to make it happen in practice (where things are not boolean).

Imposing penalties to the suing party on stupid cases is one such way. One can also make the legal system cheaper, make it less irritating (as most of the irritation is accidental), level the playing field for people against giant corporations (and, while we are at that, also level for small corporations against big corporations)... There are probably hundreds of other actions that'll help, if none are taken, it's a huge sign that a legal system is already brought.

[chc]

The idea that "freedom of speech" only applies to government actions is common, but nonsensical. Constitutional protection of that freedom only applies to the government, but that doesn't mean another entity taking the same actions isn't also abridging your freedom of speech, even in the US — it's just that the Bill of Rights was focused on limiting the government's power, not any other entity's, so it only prevents the government from abridging your freedom of speech.

[ska]

It's worth noting, particularly given where the story occurred, that this is a US-centric take on what "Freedom of Speech" means, and really doesn't generalize well.