In regards to guaranteeing freedom of speech, Amazon and Whole Foods doesn't have a leg to stand on in this case. Being in support of veterans does not (in most usual cases, anyhow) incite violence or unrest.
An example of government in the US curtailing "free speech" in a fashion that is deemed necessary and legal would be stopping a KKK rally where they are calling for open acts of violence - e.g.: lynchings and beatings - upon non-Caucasians. (This is why KKK leaders are very careful about how they frame their rallying cries these days - they know that if they say what they REALLY want to say in a public setting, then their group will be shut down faster than you can say "You have the right to remain silent".) Ditto for diatribes distributed on the Internet. This is the main reason why many platforms that have user generated content and commentary have it first and foremost in their terms of service agreements: that you do not call for harm to be done to people of a specific group. This way, these online platforms can wash their hands of you once the FBI and Homeland Security come a-knocking.
Another case is political messages within the US Armed Forces. Specifically, it's not generally allowed. Our military is already a politically charged beast as is. Having uniformed individuals campaign for one side or the other is a distraction from the job they should be doing - one that can potentially be lethal. That said, it's all fine and good for them to sit down among their own and discuss their thoughts, provided they don't let their passions get the better of them. There's really no rules against that, and trying to curtail that kind of thing is going a step too far. Although they are told to be cautious about what they say, for obvious reasons. But campaigning is a huge no-no.
The key thing to remember is that there is a point at which a person needs be held accountable for the things they say. If the things you say somehow lead to property being damaged and people being hurt and/or killed, then a debt to society is certainly owed. And thus, that's where the government in the US will intercede: where the things being said will have a certain chance of dire consequences.
Otherwise, freedom of speech will be upheld, as in the case with Whole Foods.
An example of government in the US curtailing "free speech" in a fashion that is deemed necessary and legal would be stopping a KKK rally where they are calling for open acts of violence - e.g.: lynchings and beatings - upon non-Caucasians. (This is why KKK leaders are very careful about how they frame their rallying cries these days - they know that if they say what they REALLY want to say in a public setting, then their group will be shut down faster than you can say "You have the right to remain silent".) Ditto for diatribes distributed on the Internet. This is the main reason why many platforms that have user generated content and commentary have it first and foremost in their terms of service agreements: that you do not call for harm to be done to people of a specific group. This way, these online platforms can wash their hands of you once the FBI and Homeland Security come a-knocking.
Another case is political messages within the US Armed Forces. Specifically, it's not generally allowed. Our military is already a politically charged beast as is. Having uniformed individuals campaign for one side or the other is a distraction from the job they should be doing - one that can potentially be lethal. That said, it's all fine and good for them to sit down among their own and discuss their thoughts, provided they don't let their passions get the better of them. There's really no rules against that, and trying to curtail that kind of thing is going a step too far. Although they are told to be cautious about what they say, for obvious reasons. But campaigning is a huge no-no.
The key thing to remember is that there is a point at which a person needs be held accountable for the things they say. If the things you say somehow lead to property being damaged and people being hurt and/or killed, then a debt to society is certainly owed. And thus, that's where the government in the US will intercede: where the things being said will have a certain chance of dire consequences.
Otherwise, freedom of speech will be upheld, as in the case with Whole Foods.