Is said employee convicted of slander in a court of law? If not, then no. We cannot cherry pick how we apply the law.

The boss can choose to fire the employ for whatever they want. If the employ smells difrwnt the boss can choose to fire them

You can't limit free speech and still call it free speech. Nothing should be censored or restricted. Doing so will lead nowhere.
This includes racist, sexist, and offensive words. Just suck it up and deal with it. I understand it's bad, however, you shouldn't limit what a person cam and cannot say

Freedom of speech and what I call freedom of expression are two seperate things. You can say and display whatever terrible things you want, but if your workplace wants to maintain good repute, they will use their freedom of expression to reveal their digust and contempt at your actions by no longer employing you. Being able to say anything you want is to free you from the government taking action against you and your ideas. It does not stop the general public or family, friends, etc, from ostracizing you when they disagree with your speech or opinion, because they are free to hold their own ideas on what you say. Freedom of speech gives you the ability to voice opinions your politicians would you rather not, and prevent anyone who is supposed to protect you from hurting you over what you say. Say what you want, but the consequences will follow behind, even if the govt cant kill/silence you for it.

That's just splitting hairs. If there are consequences for speaking out about something then it creates an artificial clamp on freedom. When you disagree with your superiors on an issue or find their practices unfair or annoying to yourself, you have the right to voice it. They can also tell you tough, but by adding the dissuading element of "If you speak out against me or say something I don't like, You'll lose your job" it creates a punishment for something that's suppose to be a right of the people. And to use the freedom of expression as a defense for the action is in of itself a defense for that action. You are hampering my freedom of expression by forcefully silencing me with the threat of termination.

Expressing concern with your superiors on issues is not a clear cut scenario. It could be you want a payraise, or get time off, change the work schedule, ask for something to be put somewhere. The scenario you provide is obviously where a superior is clearly in the wrong and an employee is pointing it out, is more protected by Freedom of Speech than he is limited by "freedom of expression", because that is a situation that Freedom of Speech is meant for. While not intended, "freedom of expression" can be used as blackmail, but that's up to the decisions made by the individual who keeps it as an option to utilize. Freedom of Speech allows you say what you want, but it does not stop potential negative reactions to what you say. You should be able to say whatever you want without a sword hanging over your head, but the minute the words leave your mouth, you are fair game for critiscism.

Criticism, yes. Punishment, no. The moment it is used as blackmail, it becomes a violation of the 1st amendment. If you wanna join a cult and hate the gays but show up to work and do your job with a polite smile on your face, it should be of no concern.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee freedom of speech without punishment. That is clear because the Supreme Court decided that false, dangerous speech (yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater) is not protected and therefore punishable. There are some forms of speech that are so dangerous, that society cannot allow the speakers to live normal, uninterrupted lives. For example, someone who works for Walmart posts on their personal account paedophilic content, thoughts, ideation. They haven't done anything illegal, but they are fired from Walmart. Why? Because as a society, we have dictated that certain ideals cannot be expressed within the context of a normal life. If we allow people who blatantly express certain views to continue about their normative lives, then we are seen as normalising their views, which cannot happen.

The Constitution most definitely guarantees the unabridged freedom of speech. Your first point does not fall under freedom of speech because it has intent to harm or mislead. The difference being that yelling fire in a crowded theater will lead to panic and possible death/injury, while calling out your boss for something you disagree with does not. It may harm his image or the image of the business but that should be proven in court. Till intentional damage is proven, it's just criticism, which for this scenario I'd say over said persons personal fb page. It would be a different circumstance if they "@ Walmart you guys are so mean my boss wrote me up today for something at (insert location)" compared to "Man today sucked, i got written up for clocking in a whole 2 seconds too soon, my boss is an asshole. The second point is, I'll give you, a bit more grey but if they have not broken the law, it should be none of anyone's business.

We'll say a person has two twitter accounts. One is their own personal account and another for a company. No matter what is said on the first account, so long as it's directed explicitly at someone, it should be fine, regardless of how controversial it is. But if they @the company they work for, or use the second one, it should be fair game for legal action. This to me, however, does not apply to public office.

My point is that whether you CAN say something under freedom of speech doesn't make you free from consequences in a civilised society. If you're an adult benefiting from the advantages of a society, then you have to conduct yourself within the public sphere in a way that the society deems acceptable in order to continue those benefits. Social media has become part of the public sphere, so posting things that are considered unacceptable is a way to get yourself ostracised from the mainstream society, including potentially losing your job.

Having freedom does not protect you from what follows after. Plenty of employers look for personal accounts that potential recruits have to gauge the character of the person in question. Saying the proposed rule that as long as they keep it on a personal account is not reason to get them fired, yet public offices do not have the same protection, is an unfair equivalence. If an employer finds out that you are a racist, they have their own standards to consider when they realize they are employing someone who holds hurtful or malicious views towards coworkers. Does this company condone hiring a racist as long as they only are a racist when they're off property and the clock? Freedom of speech should not allow you to act like an asshole in your private life and have you wear a mask and act like someone else. If anything, be true to who you are, and let the events that follow shape you, rather than being deceitful. Freedom of speech is a right, that has privilege, with responsibility.

I disagree. The whole point of freedom is that you can share your opinions and beliefs without the fear of it biting you. For public figures, they don't get that freedom while in office because they serve people and as such cannot hold opinion or at the very least cannot allow said opinions to influence that service.

As much as you wish it to be, the backlash itself is a variation of Freedom of speech. Virtually, yes, everyone should be able to say what they want, but in reality, everyone will have an opinion on what you say, be it positive or negative, and they have a right to do so. Saying you should be free to speak however you want without any sort of consequence feels like an admittance that one could lack any spine in saying what they want. If you dont want to say what you want to, then you have no braverey when it comes to your freedom of speech.

ad hominem or appeal to emotion I'm not sure which

not emotion. I meant consequence

I dont want to come off as anti free speech, by the way. I fully believe that people should have the right to say what they want, and should be allowed to speak it publicly, but I'm of the opinion that society likes to dictate what is acceptable and what isn't. It holds a lot of sway when it comes to personal life. Society doesn't necessarily like what individuals have to say if it isn't in line. It could be an employee arguing against a course of action, or someone believing a certain race is worth less than another. If you don't fit reasonably into the squares, then they like to simply remove you from the square and put someone else in who stays in the lines.

freedom of speech is exactly what it us. you have the right to say what you want, and the government should not be able to prosecute you for your opinion. but this does not mean people have to listen to you, and that not everyone has to tolerate it. if you're gonna spout nonsense, then be prepared for other people to exercise their own freedom of speech against you.

Zinope does have a point though. Someone with higher standing could threaten you to not express your opinion.

https://xkcd.com/1357/
I think teacher shouldn't be allowed to purposely spread false information, for example, that the holocaust was faked. I also think that if someone starts making threats then those should be taken seriously, and people sypathizing with nazis or terrorists should be put on watchlists. Such people wouldn't be arrested unless they act, of course.