>I fail to see the difference between said scenario and that of using fire hoses and attack dogs.
Initiation of violence.
If you can't see the difference between ending a relationship and putting a gun to someones head, I can't help it.
And to repeat my question:
>If a slave does not dare to speak out against his master out of fear that he'll be withheld food, would you really call this a problem with freedom of speech?
>I'd say anything that causes people to keep quite has to do with freedom of speech.
So if I would stop posting in this thread because negative reponses distress me and cause me to lose sleep, you'd call this a issue of freedom of speech?
>Why do you think statutes related to whistle-blowers exist?
As another band-aid to put on the severed arm of labour?
>Of course, with freedom comes responsibility. Make of that what you will.
Another thing I already asked and nobody answered:
>what kind of negative consequences (if any at all) would you be willing to accept for speaking out?
Are nonviolent, passive reactions acceptable? Or only if they don't inconvene you? If so, what constitutes acceptable inconvenience? (And let's not kid ourselves here, nobody in a first world nation is dependent on a specific job.)