It's because the pendulum has taken a noticeable swing in the reverse direction, with online mobs getting people fired because of opinions they've expressed. Extreme labels like "white supremacist" and "Nazi" are being put on people for views that deviate from approved ideology. This is creating a climate of fear in which each case of someone getting fired is enough to cow thousands if not millions of observers, who fear to lose their own jobs if they speak out or even slip up. Bogus arguments like "it doesn't count unless the government does it" are being used to dismiss free speech concerns about this. To me it seems obvious that from a free speech point of view it's fine for people to respond to each other with criticism, even if they're mean and mischaracterize each other, but getting people fired crosses an obvious line into non-speech and physical harm. It's not as harmful as physical violence or putting someone in prison for what they say, but it's on the same spectrum, and the psychology of the zealots who want to see people punished in this way is unmistakeable. That's where the comparisons to the Soviet Union, China, and so on, come in. Anyone who is familiar with the history knows the type, even if so far they are unable to do more than exert power over employment.
There's also deplatforming, which falls in between pure speech (such as criticism/debate) and physical harm (such as firing).
It directly impacts livelihood. It's physical in the sense that it's a real world, tangible harm. This is not at all the same thing as somebody merely saying something critical on Twitter. There's a clear distinction here.
There is a distinction but it's not the one you were originally making. Which seems important in a discussion about kinds of harms. Firing someone is not assault.
These hypothetical people are getting fired because their words cause real harm to people. They encourage others to act in ways that result in (not at all hypothetical) physical, emotional and economic harm, usually to underrepresented groups who are least able to weather it.
You'd get fired if you punched a coworker, getting fired for speech that encourages others to do the punching seems like fair game. If you're in a position of influence you must measure your words carefully if you care at all about not harming people.
If you want to explore radical, potentially harmful ideas, find a safe space of like minded people to do it in rather than forcing it on random people on the internet unconsensually.
> These hypothetical people are getting fired because their words cause real harm to people.
These people are not hypothetical and the statement is dehumanization. If you punch a coworker they will have a damage that could be measured and reported. On the other side you won't be able to measure how offended someone is (unless it goes against the law). Cancelling people for having their own ideas even if they are different from what is conventional transforms into a witch hunt for a "greater good".
There's also deplatforming, which falls in between pure speech (such as criticism/debate) and physical harm (such as firing).