The case we're talking about is I accuse you of calling me a fatty and get a bunch of people to tell your employer that they'll boycott, costing a bunch of people their income, people who didn't do anything, unless they fire you.

Note that I said "accuse". Maybe you called me a fatty, maybe you didn't.

Note that "get" is too strong. There appear to be people waiting for an excuse to go after "your employer" for pretty much any value of "your employer". I may not even be bothered - someone else may do the "get" even if all I do is mention that you called me fatty/thought that you thought of me as a fatty without any intent that someone do something.

Let's not move the goalposts. If you hurt your boss's feelings, should you lose your livelihood?

I see your "move the goalposts" and raise a "mote and bailey".

I'm describing cancel culture as it is, which is different from "calling your boss a fatty" (or a Nazi for that matter).

We might well decide that the "right thing" in these situations is different.

Which reminds me - does someone have an obligation to hire me after I call them a fatty?

I’m not convinced it’s different from “cancel culture as it is”. One common theme I’ve seen — including in this thread! — is people creating a dichotomy between “free speech” and “feelings”. Usually that means they want to say something controversial, but their own feelings get hurt when they receive pushback, so they try to reframe the debate in such a way that they’re the aggrieved party.

The “insult my boss” is a good thought experiment because it reveals that motivation. Is it really about “free speech” vs. “feelings”, or is there something else going on?

Get fired is "their own feelings get hurt"?

The boss situation is a lousy experiment because its result tells us nothing about what the result should be in the situation we're discussing. (For one, my boss isn't going to fire me by threatening the business if I call him a fatty.)

For example, it's relatively easy to figure out who the person is behind this account. The mob could decide that I've "done wrong" and go after my income. That's no where near me screaming at my boss that he's a Nazi or a fatty.

FWIW, "free speech" might not be the right hook - toleration might be more accurate. After all, many of the cancelers justify their actions as "we tolerate everything except intolerance."

The answer to "must my boss tolerate me calling him fatty?" is probably different from "should my fellow employees lose their income because A says that I called B 'fatty'?"

And then there's the fact that the cancellers go after everyone who might employ me. My fat boss doesn't have that kind of reach.

That's exactly the point that was being made to you. The debate here is precisely what is reasonable, and what is harm.

The comment I replied to seemed to trivialize emotional harm and suggest that loss of livelihood might be too severe. Did I read too much into it?

I was providing an actual scenario as a basis of comparison. I think concrete examples are more useful here.

It's not really an informative example. You're not losing your job in this case for emotional harm. It's because you insulted your boss. You could lose your job even if he didn't care.

If you had to let an employee go and caused even more emotional harm (brought on by their no longer being employed), you wouldn't receive a reprisal.

Why are you pointing out that speech sometimes is reasonable to punish? How does this clarify the question of whether we have become too punitive regarding political and controversial social speech.

In America, in most jobs you can be fired for any reason as long as it is not discriminatory against a protected class.

What do you mean by “acceptable” here? As in, an average person would consider it fair?

I think it's broadly considered acceptable because insulting your boss is an aggresive behavior directed at a colleague. Simply stating an opinion is not.

Does it matter at all what the opinion is?