No, you define it.

If im asking you it’s because I don’t understand your viewpoint , how would me defining it help with that?

Im seeing a wall of text here so I’m going to split them up into something more coherent.

Should an employee who advocates for abortion rights be able to be fired because their employer doesn’t like the optics of their statement?

Should an employee who vouches for a particular political candidate be able to be fired for it?

The answer to both is that it’s a legal issue, my personal beliefs don’t really factor in to the legal outcome.

I think freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences so consider the (sometimes legally viable, if not morally) consequences of your actions and act accordingly.

I think we can both agree that a person who advocates for the genocide of a people should be punished, but where do you draw the line?

Thats a very rigid position to take on something that has significant subjective nuance.

I’d evaluate on a case by case basis and make a decision based on what I can live with.

As much as I don’t really care for corporate interests, there are real consequences for companies that continue to employ people with controversial views; why would they want to continue to employ those people when they could win back public favor by firing them?

No idea, not sure how it’s relevant but I don’t generally care enough to have an opinion I’d be willing to defend.

Im not being dismissive, I genuinely don’t give corporate PR tactics that much of my headspace unless I have no choice.

I don’t think I could define a line between what’s “accepted” political speech that’s protected against employer reprisal and what’s not. Unless we go old stand-bys, such as calls for violence, which are easy to evade. I’m not suggesting this is an easy or even a possible problem to solve; all I meant was that think employees should be protected from firing for reasonable political statements. What “reasonable” is defined as is a much more complicated question, and I concede I don’t have an answer for it.

Agreed

I wasnt looking for what “acceptable” political opinions consist of, i was wondering how you defined that category in general.

I ask a variation of this question a lot (check my history for examples).

Im not looking for a fight im just bad at understanding ambiguity in some contexts.

I think people should be allowed to make political statements outside of a work context without risking their jobs—but with our current societal norms siding with corporate image concerns, this does seem in-line with the norms of that approach.

Define “political statement”.

Because it looks like you’re putting “this is just like beginning of the holocaust”, “non-whites don’t deserve human rights” and “let’s seriously consider not having a secret police” in the same bracket here.

A statement being a political position doesn’t (or rather shouldn’t) automatically shield you from the other meanings of that statement and writing that off as all being “corporate image concerns” is insidious.

They were arresting people for talking walks by themselves in the woods in 2020-2022

Citation ?

That seems like it’d be right in the region of lockdown and curfews.

The Switzerland part is verifiable, somewhat.

The British part is dubious in its subject, you can see many arrests for protesting and other things the government doesn’t like. But preaching? Like, religion? Thats a stretch.

You can probably find a couple over the years but not much more.

The beatings in Europe part seems anecdotal and vague.

The small town America part has strong “trust me bro” vibes and a long history of anecdotes and news stories to the contrary.

The native reservation part is verifiable in numbers but lacking in context.

North Alaska I’ve no idea.

Areas with high levels of organised crime (not the governmental or ruling class kind) being potentially dangerous isn’t exactly high detective work, but sure.

Experiences do very wildly though, so points for that.

Overall a solid 4/10.

Iirc affordable housing isn’t unavailable because of the cost of construction.

I could be wrong though