He should have done like Snowden. Got out of the country before exposing material. Shouldn't a witness in a high profile case like him been granted some sort of police escort by the court?
Guy paid the ultimate price for freedom of speech and informing the public. Wonder if someone will sustain there is no threat to freedom of speech because the lawsuit involved the company where he was employed, not the government.
I'm also reminded of Aaron Schartz, as well as the ordeal Steven Donzinger went through against Chevron. Fortunately survived, but had to serve some prison time[1].
See, that's why I don't post on any social platform regularly because the majority don't see the overall connection and picture, and refuse to accept the facts in any way they can. Whatever I write generally get deleted or hidden with no reason given, which I get quite used to, and society just hopelessly never changes.
In RL I never do such, as I know how to pretend and survive, for my own good. What I pointed out is that the dead guy did it with courage, with of course his life being the cost. Scaling it up I see something, and with the overall disappointment I find place to suit myself better in the future. And I don't plan to go a super long way with the majority anyway. This book is strongly recommended to read: "The Crowd" written by Gustave Le Bon. Tiktok swipers don't need to bother.
Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that you are a high-IQ Übermensch.
If you want to communicate with us hopeless blockheads, you may wish to lower the level of your discourse, and write in bite-sized concepts that our mini-minds can grasp.
For someone who doesn't post "regularly," you have commented quite a bit in this thread.
On the one hand, violence is always a threat to speaking freely. This is not new. At the very least getting fired is what most people can expect if they speak freely about legitimately confidential things at work. Even things like disparaging co-workers, in a public setting, or harassing people at work by saying inappropriate things can get you fired.
You are free to speak freely, but there are consequences, Free Speech does not imply uou can say what you like consequence free.
In some (criminal) industries, speaking freely will get you killed. If Hollywood is to be believed, speaking against the rich and powerful can get you killed. (I suspect it happens, I suspect its nowhere near as common as Hollywood makes out.)
To your point though Free Speech (capital F) has a specific constitutional meaning, and covers the consequences the govt can apply to your speaking freely. It does not promise no consequences by companies.
There is no threat to Freedom of Speech here, because what he was doing was not that kind of speech. Of course there is a chilling effect on speaking freely, his speaking out had consequences (regardless of the hand that pulled the trigger.)
In short you can't just say whatever you like (as E Jean Carrol understands) without consequence. That's not what Freedom of Speech means.
No one care about your constitution outside your borders while the concept of Free Speech is universal and isn't defined by a geographicaly limited piece of paper. I'll never let your regressive law colonize my thoughts.
Guy paid the ultimate price for freedom of speech and informing the public. Wonder if someone will sustain there is no threat to freedom of speech because the lawsuit involved the company where he was employed, not the government.
I'm also reminded of Aaron Schartz, as well as the ordeal Steven Donzinger went through against Chevron. Fortunately survived, but had to serve some prison time[1].
[1]. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/steven-don...