Clearly you are not aware of the scope of the First Amendment's applicability. The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
One observes that the 1st doesn't say a damn thing about what constraints a private organization may exert on speech. The First Amendment is a shield only against government retaliation, and just 7 percent of Americans are
employed by state, local or the federal government. It does not guarantee free speech in interactions to which no government organization is party.
- The First Amendment won’t save you from your own bad judgment
Like every provision of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment applies only to the government. The free speech clause says that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” (emphasis added). The text was properly understood only to restrain the U.S. Congress from prohibiting or punishing speech. Over the past century, courts have expanded the First Amendment to apply against state and local governments as well as the federal government, but never against a private company or individual.
- The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you think it does - CNNPolitics
- The First Amendment "Playing Field": Regulating Speech in the Workplace | New Jersey Law Blog
The right to freedom of speech is fundamental and is one of our most cherished rights, yet it is not absolute. Federal free speech protections apply only to the government. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for example, does not apply to private employers. Generally speaking, private sector employees are not entitled to First Amendment free speech protection, even when speaking about job-related matters in the course of their employment duties results in adverse employment action. For example, employers can prohibit employees from engaging in speech during work time that is not work-related. Similarly, employers must take action against employees who engage in speech that would violate an anti-harassment policy or create a hostile work environment, and private employers have every right to regulate or prohibit any category of “unprotected” speech such as “fighting words,” offensive speech or obscenity.
When considering the issue of employee free speech rights in the private sector, courts have consistently held that private employers can significantly curtail employee free speech rights. For example, in the recent case of Schumann v. Dianon Sys....the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that a private sector employee was not entitled to free-speech protection, even though his speech concerned job-related matters, where the speech was disruptive to his employment, interfered with his job performance, strained his relationship with his supervisor, created division, and was insubordinate. A good counterpoint to this decision is the Third Circuit’s ruling in Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., in which the court found a violation of public policy where an employer terminated an employee for refusing to participate in the employer’s political activities (lobbying efforts).
Private organizations are well within their rights to countenance or not pretty much whatever speech they deem suitable. The government and its elected and appointed officials, on the other hand, cannot, aside from in limited circumstances, implement the provisions the OP-er suggests.
When considering the scope of the 1st Amendment, the distinction between a private sector and public sector entity or individual is profound. While a private sector person/entity may do a variety of things, s/he/it has no authority, tax or imprison anyone. Moreover, while one can escape the orbit of private entities and their goods and services, the same is not true for governments.
