Canada

The censured her:

The Doug Ford government has put forward a motion that would censure an Ontario NDP MPP over her comments on the Israel-Gaza war and ask they not be recognized in the legislature until a formal apology is made and a statement on social media is deleted.

The motion calls comments made by Hamilton Centre MPP Sarah Jama last week “antisemitic” and “discriminatory.” If passed, it would call on the Speaker not to recognize Jama in the House “until the Member retracts and deletes her statement on social media and makes an apology in her place in the House.”

So they're trying to completely take away her ability to govern because of her speech. So yes, the government is trying to silence her.

There's a bit of a blurred line when they're members of government or government organizations versus private employers.

A political party IS part of government, even if it's not the political party leading the country. However, a party shouldn't be forced to keep somebody who goes off the rails and is causing them damage. At the same time, those same parties seem to be very pick-and-choose about which "rebellious" members they decide to expel and over what issues

the story is not about legality

Then it shouldn't use the words "free speech" in the headline. Free speech is very much a legal term.

It's not a view. It's written into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and empowered by our constitution.

It's complicated. Legally we don't have "freedom of speech".

For clarification: Do I believe that's a core human value? Absolutely.

Do I believe that tolerance is a social contact we should all abide by? Very much so!

Do I trust society to regulate itself? Heck no, from a sociological point of view that's a mess for lots of reasons. In smaller communities it may be ideal, but anything anyone says now is considered on a global scale.

So, from where I stand, it makes sense for a governing body to place limited restrictions on what a person should be allowed to say in the public sphere. This specific issue is debatable and relies on a certain amount of faith in the institution. Is it right that these people were punished for saying their beliefs? That's another complicated view that depends on a case by case basis. Is it legally allowable that a politician be censured for what they say? That depends on what they said. Is it morally allowable? From a moral absolutionist point of view, probably not, but our charters were made to prevent people from calling for violence in the public sphere. Is it morally acceptable to allow for someone to call for violence in a very real way as a political representative? What constitutes violence? How far can we deconstruct the rhetorical arguments our society is based on?

It's complicated. We don't have freedom of speech and we don't have freedom from consequences. If you give people you agree with freedom from consequences you also have to give it to the people you don't agree with.

Perhaps the headline should have reflected the actual topic more accurately.

I mean, you do have it codified in your Constitution as its very first amendment. Now, how much is it really protected, in practice...

Ya, "Free Speech" as written in the constitution only covers congressional laws.