>
Is this specific case really arbitrary though? Did you read the contract/terms & conditions that this individual was under? Was this termination random or on personal whim? Because it sounds like it's the result of an individual's actions in violation of an agreement between that individual and another entity.Such contracts would not be enforceable of course.
Employer protections are not contractually waivable, they would be quite useless if they were.
> Yes, that mentality is literally part of American culture. In the U.S., governments, unlike citizens, are granted a monopoly on the use of force so a natural distrust is not only appropriate but warranted. The government is under no obligation to defend your rights if you literally sign them away (although there are some rights which cannot be waived). You can say whatever you want, but there may be consequences depending on what you say and where you say it.
Yet in most countries where the culture is not so, one does not for instance have a right to own firearms and self-defence in general is more curbed, so I do not believe that.
> People, including children, must learn there are consequences for what they say, particularly in a public forum (and this was effectively so). The only recourse in cases such as this is whether the response was appropriate e.g., within terms of a contract. I personally do not believe that what was said and who it was said to would warrant expulsion, but that's just an opinion, not a contract.
This is a circular reasoning; such consequences exist in the U.S.A. because the country allows employees to be terminated for it. — there are no such consequences in most developed nations.