Anonymous wrote:These people deserve to lose their jobs. Totally unacceptable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how some of these people coming out in the new today can be fired for saying "I didn't shed a tear." and "He spewed hate." Even if they were "celebratory," which I must be protected, they do not in any way incite violence.

How is this not an egregious violation of the First Amendment?

And, for the record, 1) I think all political violence is wrong and hurts us all and 2) I think it is in horrible taste to celebrate ANYONE's murder.

But how can these firings possibly stand in a court of law? This is insane.

All businesses have a code of conduct, and if you bring reputational harm to the company, they don’t have to keep you. Ditto with a person that does not share their values. I wouldn’t feel comfortable working with someone who celebrates the death of another person.

And private companies not have to abide by the first amendment, that is the government only.

So you're legitimizing the policing of speech under the "free speech" banner of Charlie Kirk and are saying people are no longer able to do their own thing on their own time with their own social media accounts. Everything you say or do is owned by someone else. It's not a good look for anyone who claims to be a champion of freedom.

Have you never had a job, a real job, one with a contract and Human Resources department? You absolutely can be fired for conduct that happens on your own free time if the company deems it goes against their code of conduct and will bring reputational harm.

Some of the men who marched in Charlottesville back in 2017 were identified and fired from their jobs. This is the same thing.

Do you think that participating in a white supremacy rally is the same as being fired to doing things like posting a quote of someone’s exact words?

Sounds about white.

You are either very naive, ignorant, or have never worked for a private company, public school system, govt sector, etc. Good luck with saying whatever you want to post on a social media site.

No one said that. This is why everyone thinks that maga is so stupid. You’ve earned your reputation.

I'm not maga at all. I'm telling you that you can't post political feelings/beliefs if you have those types of jobs.

Then my apologies.

If.

Is that what people are being fired for?

Note that in these stories they almost never include the post. I think that’s because they are caught between pressure from the right and some of their customer base and the knowledge that a lawsuit is coming.

I had personally never posted anything about the guy before and likely never will, because yes, I am aware of implications. It’s not come up once in my real life, either.

I don't know anyone who's been fired (and not a C Kirk fan), but our school system where I work in GA explicitly told us in mtgs and in county wide emails that we were to post nothing political on social media sites.

Your district is probably breaking the law. Although in reality people often have to choose between their rights and attracting a lightning bolt.

NEA guidance for teachers:

Political Posts on Social Media
The good news is that most political posts on social media deserve First Amendment protection. The posts are not a part of your job. You are not speaking for the school. And political speech is generally on a matter of public concern.

All of these factors support your right to free speech. Even so, school districts may attempt to justify discipline on the ground that your social media post has materially disrupted the school environment.

As a matter of First Amendment law, courts have to balance the school district’s interest against your and the public’s interest.1

The stronger the public interest in the speech, the more disruption the employer must show.

You will have more protection when your speech is public, focuses on larger issues rather than personal gripes, and is respectful.2
**my comment--arguably, in such a case the more calls the district got about a SM post the more that would argue for public interest.

Navigating Employer-Sponsored Social Media
Your employer may have their own social media accounts or even their own social media platforms. They may encourage educators to create pages for their classes. Any posting you do on school-sponsored accounts is unlikely to receive First Amendment protection.

First, you are more likely acting as an employee because the platform is employer-sponsored. Second, the audience for these is the educational institution community, rather than the public. Third, the content will likely be specific to the educational institution, rather than generally applicable. Finally, controversial posts on these platforms are more likely to disrupt the educational environment, since the point of the platform is to reach members of that community.

Accordingly, you should be very careful about what you post on these sites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s crazy to me is that Charlie Kirk claim to fame was all about free speech. And catching people for their own free speech seems pretty hypocritical to me.

You killed the man and his ideal of free speech and debate. Gloves are off now.

Wait, I thought people shoot people. There was ONE PERSON who held that gun and pulled the trigger.

What about your anti-abortion guy who murdered the MN senator and her husband and also shot another senator and spouse? Can I blame you for that? Can I blame Charlie Kirk for telling his followers abortion is a holocaust?

You call people who disagree with democrats fascist, and someone who takes you at your word engraves a bullet with "catch this fascist," to kill an outspoken republican, and yes, I blame you and your party for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/13/business/charlie-kirk-death-fired-comments?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc&recs_exp=most-read-article-end&tenant_id=popular.en


CNN says there appears to be coordination:

Prominent far-right influencer Laura Loomer, a US senator, and a site called “Expose Charlie’s Murderers” have all drawn attention to people who have posted messages about Kirk’s Wednesday assassination.

The campaigns show how social media posts or personal messages — even by accounts with few followers or from people who are not public figures — could easily be surfaced and publicized, and people’s personal information can be spread across the internet at a time when doxxing is easier than ever.

The Charlie’s Murderers site, whose domain was registered anonymously and which says it is not a doxxing site, claims it has “received nearly 30,000 submissions,” according to a message on the site’s front page on midday Saturday. Currently, there are a few dozen submissions published on the site. “This website will soon be converted into a searchable database of all 30,000 submissions, filterable by general location and job industry. This is a permanent and continuously-updating archive of Radical activists calling for violence.”

Of course it is, and I am okay with that. You laugh and support the killing of someone, be prepared to stand by your statement when you are called out. The internet is forever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how some of these people coming out in the new today can be fired for saying "I didn't shed a tear." and "He spewed hate." Even if they were "celebratory," which I must be protected, they do not in any way incite violence.

How is this not an egregious violation of the First Amendment?

And, for the record, 1) I think all political violence is wrong and hurts us all and 2) I think it is in horrible taste to celebrate ANYONE's murder.

But how can these firings possibly stand in a court of law? This is insane.

All businesses have a code of conduct, and if you bring reputational harm to the company, they don’t have to keep you. Ditto with a person that does not share their values. I wouldn’t feel comfortable working with someone who celebrates the death of another person.

And private companies not have to abide by the first amendment, that is the government only.

So you're legitimizing the policing of speech under the "free speech" banner of Charlie Kirk and are saying people are no longer able to do their own thing on their own time with their own social media accounts. Everything you say or do is owned by someone else. It's not a good look for anyone who claims to be a champion of freedom.

I guess I can start policing the parking lit and scouring the social media of my employees and summarily firing MAGA folk. Sorry. Oh, and sorry you won't have health insurance or food since Trump cut those benefits.

On a positive note, yáll have bootstraps!

If your business is in DC, political affiliation is a protected class.

Are there a lot of MAGAs living in DC?

Good to know that people won’t be fired for their views on Kirk.

..

Celebrating a human's death is not a protected class. MAGA, progressive, democrat, and being a republican is.

I thought you were the party of intelligent people?

Anonymous wrote:I’ve turned over posts I’ve seen from co workers on both sides to our HR. No one should be celebrating someone’s death nor should they be threatening others with physical harm regardless of what they say.

Anonymous wrote:I’ve turned over posts I’ve seen from co workers on both sides to our HR. No one should be celebrating someone’s death nor should they be threatening others with physical harm regardless of what they say.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s crazy to me is that Charlie Kirk claim to fame was all about free speech. And catching people for their own free speech seems pretty hypocritical to me.

You killed the man and his ideal of free speech and debate. Gloves are off now.

Wait, I thought people shoot people. There was ONE PERSON who held that gun and pulled the trigger.

What about your anti-abortion guy who murdered the MN senator and her husband and also shot another senator and spouse? Can I blame you for that? Can I blame Charlie Kirk for telling his followers abortion is a holocaust?

You call people who disagree with democrats fascist, and someone who takes you at your word engraves a bullet with "catch this fascist," to kill an outspoken republican, and yes, I blame you and your party for that.

How many times do people have to tell you before you understand. It was a gamer meme. Please, please at least try to stop saying profoundly uninformed stuff. It reflects so poorly on you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s crazy to me is that Charlie Kirk claim to fame was all about free speech. And catching people for their own free speech seems pretty hypocritical to me.

You killed the man and his ideal of free speech and debate. Gloves are off now.

Wait, I thought people shoot people. There was ONE PERSON who held that gun and pulled the trigger.

What about your anti-abortion guy who murdered the MN senator and her husband and also shot another senator and spouse? Can I blame you for that? Can I blame Charlie Kirk for telling his followers abortion is a holocaust?

You call people who disagree with democrats fascist, and someone who takes you at your word engraves a bullet with "catch this fascist," to kill an outspoken republican, and yes, I blame you and your party for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s crazy to me is that Charlie Kirk claim to fame was all about free speech. And catching people for their own free speech seems pretty hypocritical to me.

You killed the man and his ideal of free speech and debate. Gloves are off now.

Wait, I thought people shoot people. There was ONE PERSON who held that gun and pulled the trigger.

What about your anti-abortion guy who murdered the MN senator and her husband and also shot another senator and spouse? Can I blame you for that? Can I blame Charlie Kirk for telling his followers abortion is a holocaust?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how some of these people coming out in the new today can be fired for saying "I didn't shed a tear." and "He spewed hate." Even if they were "celebratory," which I must be protected, they do not in any way incite violence.

How is this not an egregious violation of the First Amendment?

And, for the record, 1) I think all political violence is wrong and hurts us all and 2) I think it is in horrible taste to celebrate ANYONE's murder.

But how can these firings possibly stand in a court of law? This is insane.

All businesses have a code of conduct, and if you bring reputational harm to the company, they don’t have to keep you. Ditto with a person that does not share their values. I wouldn’t feel comfortable working with someone who celebrates the death of another person.

And private companies not have to abide by the first amendment, that is the government only.

So you're legitimizing the policing of speech under the "free speech" banner of Charlie Kirk and are saying people are no longer able to do their own thing on their own time with their own social media accounts. Everything you say or do is owned by someone else. It's not a good look for anyone who claims to be a champion of freedom.

I guess I can start policing the parking lit and scouring the social media of my employees and summarily firing MAGA folk. Sorry. Oh, and sorry you won't have health insurance or food since Trump cut those benefits.

On a positive note, yáll have bootstraps!

If your business is in DC, political affiliation is a protected class.

Are there a lot of MAGAs living in DC?

Good to know that people won’t be fired for their views on Kirk.

..

Celebrating a human's death is not a protected class. MAGA, progressive, democrat, and being a republican is.

I thought you were the party of intelligent people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how some of these people coming out in the new today can be fired for saying "I didn't shed a tear." and "He spewed hate." Even if they were "celebratory," which I must be protected, they do not in any way incite violence.

How is this not an egregious violation of the First Amendment?

And, for the record, 1) I think all political violence is wrong and hurts us all and 2) I think it is in horrible taste to celebrate ANYONE's murder.

But how can these firings possibly stand in a court of law? This is insane.

All businesses have a code of conduct, and if you bring reputational harm to the company, they don’t have to keep you. Ditto with a person that does not share their values. I wouldn’t feel comfortable working with someone who celebrates the death of another person.

And private companies not have to abide by the first amendment, that is the government only.

So you're legitimizing the policing of speech under the "free speech" banner of Charlie Kirk and are saying people are no longer able to do their own thing on their own time with their own social media accounts. Everything you say or do is owned by someone else. It's not a good look for anyone who claims to be a champion of freedom.

Have you never had a job, a real job, one with a contract and Human Resources department? You absolutely can be fired for conduct that happens on your own free time if the company deems it goes against their code of conduct and will bring reputational harm.

Some of the men who marched in Charlottesville back in 2017 were identified and fired from their jobs. This is the same thing.

Do you think that participating in a white supremacy rally is the same as being fired to doing things like posting a quote of someone’s exact words?

Sounds about white.

You are either very naive, ignorant, or have never worked for a private company, public school system, govt sector, etc. Good luck with saying whatever you want to post on a social media site.

No one said that. This is why everyone thinks that maga is so stupid. You’ve earned your reputation.

I'm not maga at all. I'm telling you that you can't post political feelings/beliefs if you have those types of jobs.

Then my apologies.

If.

Is that what people are being fired for?

Note that in these stories they almost never include the post. I think that’s because they are caught between pressure from the right and some of their customer base and the knowledge that a lawsuit is coming.

I had personally never posted anything about the guy before and likely never will, because yes, I am aware of implications. It’s not come up once in my real life, either.

I don't know anyone who's been fired (and not a C Kirk fan), but our school system where I work in GA explicitly told us in mtgs and in county wide emails that we were to post nothing political on social media sites.