There are couple possible explanations for the firing. For example, they fired the wrong guy. Or the firing was an accident, someone pushed wrong button. They are all implausible, because they are out of ordinary. That is, it is not entirely impossible, just highly improbable.

I count "failing to adhere to editorial quality standards" along these lines. While it is plausible, it is not likely explanation. There is no historical precedent for such stringent enforcement. This specific offense, outside of being politically charged topic, is not notable enough. Reprimand? Sure, I could see that.

So when you eliminate all the improbable causes, what remains is that editor was intentionally and disproportionately was made an example of. If you accept that this is the case, what do you think is motivation for doing so if not to silence and chill speech in the future?

[Linked Image]