Most everyone in the United States is familiar that this country supports the right of the people to freedom of speech, but courts have ruled, that such freedom of speech, is situational dependent, so that those that are direct employees of the federal government, are afforded far more freedom of speech, since the First Amendment is interpreted to mean that the federal government is precluded from abridging one's freedom of speech; whereas, those corporations which are not public entities, are considered to have the right to limit their employee's freedom of speech, subject to other pertinent rules, laws, and regulations.
It is a rather sad state of affairs, when a person by virtue of seeking employment, and thereby gaining such employment, consequently, must have their freedom of speech subjected to being abridged, or face lawful termination for not being compliant with such, upon the entering into their place of employment. That, on the face of it, seems un-American, and unless such speech is in violation of confidential information or trade secrets, then employees should rather have full freedom of speech, subject to the very same additional rules, laws, and regulations that apply to all Americans, that abridge freedom of speech for the greater good of mankind and civil discourse, such as in laws that preclude discrimination in the workplace, and hence do not countenance overt racial or religious discrimination in speech or conduct.
When it comes to how the law is applied and interpreted, this does not mean that such laws and interpretations are correct, and when citizens are dealing with the consequences of something as fundamental as being able to voice their opinions and viewpoints within the workplace without fear of retaliation, then such needs to be looked at very carefully and thoroughly. After all, in today's world, the vast majority of those that are employed, are not self-employed, but work for companies, of which, those companies often have control of the hours so worked, the tasks that must be worked upon, and the compensation that is provided for each of their employees. To therefore give those companies, the control of the speech of their employees allowed, effectively makes the employer's task much easier in being able to stifle not only internal dissent and discussion, but to preclude the uniting of employees into a viable union, or to discuss the conditions of such employment in a manner that is beneficial for those employees.
The primary reason why private employers do not desire freedom of speech within their facilities, has nothing to do at all with their employees voicing opinions that are just weird and unorthodox but ultimately are of no relevance; but rather these free speech abridgments are primarily enforced in order to strike down those that are in consideration of talking about the big picture of employee compensation, health benefits, profit sharing, and all things that are favorable to those that labor; in which, employers are not interested in a vibrant democracy within their facility, but rather prefer to be, at best, a benign autocracy, and at worse, one that rules with an iron fist. To the extent that courts support the abridging of freedom of speech within corporate facilities, this so indicates that those courts believe, that those that enter into the facilities of private employment, leave thereby their freedom outside those doors, and are thereby mandated by law to put on their chains when so entering.