I think what you meant to say was, according to >>17's employment scenario , anyone who would be punched in the stomach for unpopular speech should just find someplace to speak where they won't be punched in the stomach, which in the case in which it's supposed to bring about social change renders it useless or silent, since the point is to reach and persuade initially nonreceptive ears. how many millions of african americans would still be using separate bathrooms today under this philosophy had the courts not ruled to protect them from illegal repression of free speech?
Now let's come back to employment, same principle, but instead of direct perpetration of starvation or eviction, it's indirectly done through the termination of living wage, muddying of people's resumes/references, and with the increasing amount of consolidation in the economy, industry wide black balling.
I fail to see the difference between said scenario and that of using fire hoses and attack dogs.