Setting aside the gigantic leap and cognitive dissonance required to imply that a short-serving Chief Software Office is somehow a war criminal and answering your actual question: Avoiding factual statements that have to do with race, religion, politics, sexual orientation, and gender is a good start.
So, if say you're black and your employer pulls some racist shit on you, or a woman and they pull some sexist shit, you shouldn't post any factual statements about it, right?
If you read the rest of my comment, I don't actually have a problem with accusing people of war crimes. I think it's assinine to think one could do so and hope to continue to be paid by those people though. I would think that someone so ready to stand on this moral high ground wouldn't want that money but I guess when it actually comes to backing up her morals, she'll take the money instead.
Your critique only makes sense if she's working for the DoD, or negotiating those contracts for VMWare, or VMWare's business is significantly DoD contracts, none of which are true.
The DoD also performs public services that ostensibly protect her life and liberty at some level, and doubtless she doesn't disagree with those functions. The amount one benefits from an entity one disagrees with can be variable, and debatable.
If you're the owner of your company, the company won't fire you. You can still harm your company (and thereby yourself) by attacking your biggest customers on social media.
On his private twitter? While NOT posting about the company at all?
It was a customer of the company that got offended. Should he know every customer of the company? If the company has 1000s of customers, are they all off limits? Are you supposed to know who they are?
If you work for AT&T and an AT&T customer (of the millions it has) is a jerk or you have some political disagreement with their views, do you get to tweet about it on your personal twitter account? Should they be able to complain and get you fired?
I don't think anyone is debating VMWare's legal right to fire her, just the wisdom of such a decision.
If I was a big tech company especially one trying to find people interested in working lower down the stack, I wouldn't go around pissing off leftist furries.
> They are free to make these claims in a way that doesn’t damage the business. Like a second personal Twitter account.
Are they, though?
I mean, presumably they were posting from a personal account to begin with. Just how separate would a second account have to be - Is it enough to just say all opinions are their own, and only post on their own time? Could they use their own name? What about an online handle they'd used before, if a highly motivated doxxer could possibly identify their employer?
I don't know about that, the smartest man in the world can't seem to stop posting while multiple distinct sets of complete idiots have managed to take over Afghanistan in the past two decades.
> What other factual statements should you not be allowed to make about your employer's clients?
The author seemed perfectly fine with getting paid by their employer, but somehow felt morally justified to openly criticize the way they got their paycheck. It sounds like a very selective self-righteous position.
What other factual statements should you not be allowed to make about your employer's clients?