Where were you in the Simmons thread.
Ah, but Simmons wasn't denied a right to make a statement as he deemed fit, rather it just got him in trouble with his employer. Now we can debate the justice of that as much as we can assess the merits of his gesture. At the private level of employer/employee relationship, however, the two are of course inextricably connected. Since many took umbrage with Simmon's response as being racist (in a time of increasing intolerance towards racism and in which a crime is aggravated by racist motives), unavoidably the cyclist's employer took an aversive messure to diminish the negative publicity. Simmons, as a Trump supporter responding to the opposition (which is political), simply chose the most offensive icon imaginable, thus exposing himself to the public scrutiny inherent to democracy. And if his gesture was done with complete innocence as he claims, devoid of any degrading correlations or unaware that they could be assumed (although who can really believe that?), then his lack of shrewdness alone inevitably came with a price. Unfortunately, and Simmons learnt this the hard way, being able to say what you want doesn't come without burdens.
By contrast, Tao's statement against racism is being attacked as dishonourable and reprobate by some who would rather he keep his views to himself (why, though, is anyone's guess and the suspicions of racism it inevitably entails). Yet those who defend Simmons proclaim his right to freedom of speach (the same one they would deny Tao), even when that was never up for question. The double-standard is mind boggling.