People are losing jobs due to social media posts about Charlie Kirk.

[generalbetrayus]

So much for the First Amendment. Is Orange Julius Caesar and his minions from Hell aware of DU?

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/13/nx-s1-5538476/charlie-kirk-jobs-target-social-media-critics-resign

[RandySF]

1. Some of those terminations will be reversed.

Public sector employers are typically subject to the First Amendment as they are government.

[Irish_Dem]

2. What the H happened to FREE SPEECH. We must be silent in the face of evil?

[Greg_In_SF]

7. This is in no way

a first amendment issue.

[Blues Heron]

9. It is - it's un American to not respect the spirit of the first amendment. America runs on spirit, honor etc.

This is exactly bullshit what’s going on here with these firings.

[EdmondDantes_]

10. No it isn't.

The first amendment says Congress shall make no law. There's nothing about anyone else being barred from providing consequences to your speech.

How many people here cheer when someone posts something racist and gets fired?

[generalbetrayus]

16. I'd say it may not be a First Amendment issue so far, but article says it could quickly become one.

"And more may be to come: some GOP lawmakers and officials are signaling their readiness to punish people for their speech."

[totodeinhere]

32. If the government takes action against speech then its a 1st Amendment issue.

And some GOP in Congress as well as Trump are calling for that.

[Greg_In_SF]

14. I'm an American

and I respect the first amendment...the one that applies ONLY to the government.

These firings have absolutely nothing to do with the the first amendment. You we be laughed out of your attorney's office if you told them you wanted to file a free speech law suit against your employer.

[generalbetrayus]

17. See my comment # 16 above.

[Greg_In_SF]

19. I saw

it.

[Wiz Imp]

21. Not true. I believe multiple government workers have been fired.

And the Supreme Court ruled that illegal almost 40 years ago.

In a 1987 case, the Supreme Court decided that it was constitutionally protected speech, and not grounds for firing, for a government employee to tell her co-workers she was sorry that a would-be assassin failed to kill President Reagan.

[biophile]

26. You are right but today's SCOTUS doesn't care for precedent

I’m sure their pretzel logic would allow them to carve out an exception for the murder of a RWNJ.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. I don't get why people don't understand that

If I owned a business and one of my employees went on line and cheered the murder of someone, and I found out about it, they would be fired.

I've been reading about this on and off all day, and many of them are teachers; no one who cheers for murder should be a teacher.

There is a judge in Ohio, a firefighter in New Orleans, numerous military members and federal employees...WTF?

[generalbetrayus]

18. See my comment #16 above.

[Greg_In_SF]

20. Link us to

story from which you took that text.

[generalbetrayus]

25. It's in the second paragraph of the OP link.

"And more may be to come: some GOP lawmakers and officials are signaling their readiness to punish people for their speech."

[Wiz Imp]

22. In articles which have included some exact posts people have been fired for,

I have yet to see a single one that was celebratory in nature.

[Klarkashton]

3. Saint Kirk can't be criticized. So I'll say Kirk was shit

He fucked around and found out.

Fire me.

[markodochartaigh]

4. How long before the regime

decides that all social media accounts must be connected with individuals and that that data must be available to the regime.

[Farmer-Rick]

5. Time for a class action law suit

They are even pretending the obviously right wing Kirk shooter with a very strict Republican Mormon upbringing was a left radical. Such BS spewing from every orifice of every MAGA.

[Greg_In_SF]

8. A class action suit

against whom?

[Patton French]

24. Exactly!

We need a national injunction!

[IzzaNuDay]

6. I'm banking that the charliesmurderers site will not last.

It looks amateurish, we don’t know how these “reports” are vetted, and it’s credibility is suspect.

No respectable HR department should even use this as a reference under any circumstances.

I hope a hacker turns the website inside out!

A lesson for those of you still working for “the man”: if you choose to comment on CK limit your audience to those you can trust. Definitely not on work servers. Don’t leave a public comment to chance.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. At least one of the military members who was outed...

...posted to Facebook friends only, and he was turned in.

I think a lot of people assume that everyone they know would cheer for murder if they would cheer for murder, when I think actually it's a fairly small number of people who think that people should be shot for their political beliefs.

[IzzaNuDay]

15. Yeah, don't trust FB friends either

know a good number of my friends lean R. So I am somewhat cautious.

I once worked for a right winger who posted incorrect info on FB (and they wanted to friend me). If they posted some political bullshit, I shut it down immediately bringing facts and data. They knew not to retaliate too much because I was their brain trust. Before I quit, I unfriended and blocked them. I can only imagine what this person is posting today!

[Mosby]

13. WaPo did a piece on this

link

[Vote4Kam]

23. No

Unless they work in public sector, this is not a First Amendment issue.

[Greg_In_SF]

27. That is incorrect

If you work in education, law enforcement, healthcare, etc. you can still be fired for what comes out of your mouth.

[Wiz Imp]

29. no you are incorrect.

In a 1987 case, the Supreme Court decided that it was constitutionally protected speech, and not grounds for firing, for a government employee to tell her co-workers she was sorry that a would-be assassin failed to kill President Reagan.

Case Name: Rankin v. McPherson
Year Decided: 1987
The Employee's Statement: After hearing news of the assassination attempt on President Reagan, the employee said to a co-worker, "If they go for him again, I hope they get him".
The Supreme Court's Ruling: The Court decided that this statement was constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment.
Why It Was Protected:
It was a private conversation, not a statement made in her official capacity as an employee.
It was not a direct threat to the President.
It did not disrupt the workplace or impede the functions of her office.

[MichMan]

31. "It did not disrupt the workplace or impede the functions of her office"

That part would seem to be pretty subjective depending on the reactions of co workers

[sop]

28. We all need to say something nice about Charlie Kirk...

[Groundhawg]

30. AS they should for cheering on murder.