In Canada, the issue is an inherent human right of expression. Money doesn't enter into it. It would be a violation of human rights codes and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to fire a person for exercising what society considers a civic responsibility, perhaps an obligation i.e. political donations are treated very generously under our tax laws.
Re your example regarding "politically incorrect" statements by well-known persons, a human rights commission just cleared Maclean's magazine of hate-speech charges laid against it and our distinguished writer Mark Steyn by the Canadian Islamic Congress. The decision ran 37 pages but it said, in effect, media has a right to publish a range of view including those that may offend some members of the public.
Here's a cogent part: "Read in its context, the (Maclean's) article is essentially an expression of opinion on political issues which, in the light of recent historical events involving extremist Muslims and the problem facing the vast majority of the Muslim community that does not support extremism, are legitimate subjects for public discussion." Steyn's article was titled "The Future Belongs to Islam."
US media is timid compared to Canadian and British. Maclean's took the CIC on because the issue wasn't its article but "the fundamental right of all Canadians to express their views openly and honestly. It was about the responsibility of media organizations to report without fear or favour, and to foster debate in the marketplace of ideas."
Dan Cooper's rights, in my opinion, were subordinated to his company's right to make a dollar. Showing respect for the person gives content to moral law. Another dimension, particularly poignant today with your elections, also seems to have been overlooked: among the greatest achievements of your Founding Fathers was making a wholly secular state with political parties that over time permitted dissent to be a legitimate voice, not a treasonable act.
I like to think Jefferson's "empire of liberty" lives on here.
