I did. I said it technically depends on intent; however, in practice it's implausible that you weren't issuing a threat, and threats don't constitute free speech.
Ok I'm confused so can you please help me? My example was absolutely a "threat" in the sense that yes, I in that example would be serious about voicing my opinion and my intention to not voluntarily do business with that imaginary corporation while they employed that person. I would be "threatening" to do something which is entirely my freedom to do; to vote with my wallet.
But if I understand you correctly, this would be going outside my freedom of speech. Which implies that I do not have the choice to not do business with them. As in, I am obligated to purchase goods and services from them.
I am clearly misunderstanding this because that can't be right. Where did I go off track?
I'm still confused. I am completely free to choose whether or not to do business with them, but I am not allowed to tell them about my choice? Or am I not allowed to speak about it at all, regardless of who listens?
Issuing threats is not free speech. You're still free to choose with whom you do business. Terribly sorry, but I don't know how to make it simpler than that. Good luck in your pursuits.
Ah yes, and of course whether or not something is a threat depends on intent. And who could be a better judge of intent than ... throwaway894345. Who I'm sure has an incredibly nuanced way of determining intent that doesn't boil down to "SJWs have bad intent".
