That's not how that works. People don't lose their personal, principled right to free speech by virtue of taking any job. This wasn't just a news story. This was an event that happened within the community, being commented on by a member of that community and in that capacity.
Why even try to erode free speech? How could this kind of petty bullshit possibly help anyone?
You are missing the point. Certain positions require public neutrality in order to stay employed. Editor is one of them.
This isn't about free speech, it is about professionalism. Editors can publicly say whatever they want however if what they publicly say threatens the publics belief in the neutrality of their employer that is a fireable offense.
Think of a Judge publicly saying on social media that he's going to be 'incredibly hard on thieves.' A defense attorney can use that as evidence that he's biased and have his judgements thrown out.
That's not how that works. People don't lose their personal, principled right to free speech by virtue of taking any job. This wasn't just a news story. This was an event that happened within the community, being commented on by a member of that community and in that capacity.
Why even try to erode free speech? How could this kind of petty bullshit possibly help anyone?
You are missing the point. Certain positions require public neutrality in order to stay employed. Editor is one of them.
This isn't about free speech, it is about professionalism. Editors can publicly say whatever they want however if what they publicly say threatens the publics belief in the neutrality of their employer that is a fireable offense.
Think of a Judge publicly saying on social media that he's going to be 'incredibly hard on thieves.' A defense attorney can use that as evidence that he's biased and have his judgements thrown out.
It just comes with the position.