As a general rule, the First Amendment only restrains the government. It means the government can't ban speech (except in narrow, "content-neutral" ways) and courts can't punish you for it (except for things like defamation).
But the US follows at-will employment, under the more general principle of freedom of association. An employer does't have the same duty to treat its employees "fairly" that the government has to its citizens. Your employer can fire you for pretty much any reason, including differences of opinion, and the First Amendment has nothing to do with that.
The exceptions to this rule are better thought of as exceptions to at-will employment, rather than extensions of First Amendment protection. For instance, you can't fire an employee for discussing wages or working conditions with their co-workers, in the same way that you can't fire someone for being the wrong religion or for reporting illegal behavior.
(If you're saying that the courts should change their interpretation of the First Amendment to include a right to discuss politics at work... well, that would be a major break with precedent, and a huge reach beyond what the text of the amendment says, with wide-ranging ramifications. Instead, some states have passed specific laws that protect workers from discrimination on the basis of political opinion, without needing to invoke the First Amendment.)
That's not what the First Amendment is about - it's about preventing the government from making laws that infringe free speech. But this isn't a law, and GitLab isn't the government, so the First Amendment does not apply.
> It is a common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities. It is applicable only to state actors. (Wikipedia)
That same logic would suggest that no company should be able to ban any topics, content, speech, or people from their platform, no? What is free speech and expression, and what is censorship?
I think society and corporations are wrestling with these concepts right now, and I'm not sure anyone has it right yet.
It's a sign of how people are on the Internet. I did more than 1000 hours of volunteering in high school and it's made me who I am today. Now I run a startup that uses AI to automatically create real-world social events between friends: research shows the best solution to loneliness is seeing people in person more often and volunteering is certainly one of the best ways.
Probably because OP is not seeking legal action in Hacker News Court, but in a real court where broadcasting details of such information is not a good idea.
What's outlined in the article doesn't meet the burden of proof. There was a conflict and OP solipsistically experienced it as a big deal. Meanwhile, there's plenty of oppression and destitution in the world, but let's all focus on some low-level drama because it's more entertaining.
It may be low-level drama to you, but clearly the author felt threatened by the couple. The spam messages, the threats to release personal information, etc. I would have no qualms with seeking legal action.
Personally I'd feel really concerned if someone upset at a conference ... contacted a personal acquaintance who is involved in it all like a girl friend.
To me that would indicate some serious "boundaries issues."
Much closer to high school drama than illegality. OP will never obtain any judgment. I didn't think the HN community would so easily succumb to mob mentality due to a compelling narrative about a non-problem but I guess this is the Internet.
In cases where someone feels harassed "judgment" isn't necessarily even the point.
Legal action is taken, you get a lawyer, they get a lawyer... often their lawyer tells them not to contact you or people you know anymore (because that is what a good lawyer will do) and it is effectively resolved. For some people that may be enough / the entire goal and it can cost as little as everyone talking to a lawyer once.
