On freedom of speech.

The first amendment protects freedom of speech from state intervention. However, one's freedom to speak their mind is not limited only by the state. It can be limited by other factors such as job security.

It seems that there is no federal law that protects workers from being fired for their political affiliations or views. (See attached)

Doesn't this grant de-facto censorship rights to employers? If I know that expressing my opinion (outside of work) can lead to me losing my job, isn't this a severe limitation of freedom of speech?

On freedom of speech.

The first amendment protects freedom of speech from state intervention. However, one's freedom to speak their mind is not limited only by the state. It can be limited by other factors such as job security.

It seems that there is no federal law that protects workers from being fired for their political affiliations or views. (See attached)

Doesn't this grant de-facto censorship rights to employers? If I know that expressing my opinion (outside of work) can lead to me losing my job, isn't this a severe limitation of freedom of speech?

https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/fired-political-affiliation-activity

Dad, geek, conversation liquidity provider. vrypan.net (home), /weatherxm (work), @l--o--l (fun). Also https://paragraph.xyz/@purplesubmarine

trade off with forcing someone to employ someone against their wishes

Building @warpcast and @farcaster, new dad, like making food

Obviously it's a trade off. The question is if this trade off is a good one.

I'm puzzled, because I would expect that Americans put freedom of speech higher than almost everything else, but that's an honest answer.

the costs to implement are large scale government oversight, coercion of millions of business owners, and an ossified labor market so probably imo