I guess I was not clear, the first amendment is not for individual companies. If a company tells me that I cannot talk about for internal technology that is used (NDA) then I better won't because no first amendment will protect me.
What I mean is that by telling me that my vote or contribution toward specific cause is not aligned with company's goals essentially forces me to vote in a specific way which does affect my freedom of speech.
If Mozilla would be an LGBT organization and I joined and was told that my contribution don't agree with company's values. Then I'm totally at fault and should look for job somewhere else if this matter to me, but company like Mozilla has no obvious political affiliations and in fact they should not have any.
> People have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.
This definition of a "right" is so loose as to be basically meaningless. Accordingly, I have the freedom to murder anyone, just not the freedom from its consequences. People in North Korea are free to speak whatever they want, but aren't free to remain living if the government doesn't like what they said.
If you make the other cliched argument that the first amendment only applies to government suppression of speech, that's true, but the US Constitution doesn't have a monopoly on what "freedom of expression" means. It's only a legal lower bound, and in one country.
> What I mean is that by telling me that my vote or contribution toward specific cause is not aligned with company's goals essentially forces me to vote in a specific way which does affect my freedom of speech.
They don't say that though. The problem wasn't that he did something, the problem is that what he did prevented him from performing his role as CEO. And CEO is not just another employee. They are the public face of the company. They are the leader. And I don't think you'll find anyone that would argue that when he was made CEO, there was a backlash which caused problems both internally and externally for his role as CEO.
And that's why the board and he decided he would not be able to fill the role of CEO and he stepped down. Not because of his political affiliations, but because he couldn't fulfill the role they needed him to fulfill.
What I mean is that by telling me that my vote or contribution toward specific cause is not aligned with company's goals essentially forces me to vote in a specific way which does affect my freedom of speech.
If Mozilla would be an LGBT organization and I joined and was told that my contribution don't agree with company's values. Then I'm totally at fault and should look for job somewhere else if this matter to me, but company like Mozilla has no obvious political affiliations and in fact they should not have any.