As we all know, conservative commentator and influencer Charlie Kirk was assassinated on Utah Valley University’s campus last Wednesday. However, in the days since, a quieter crisis has unfolded: regular people, such as teachers, office workers, even a journalist or two, have been fired or suspended for sharing their thoughts about Kirk’s death on social media. Now, while there will be the occasional radicals celebrating his death, these weren’t violent rants. These were just blunt opinions about Kirk’s controversial takes on things such as abortion, taxation, or the Middle East. The backlash, backed by campaigns to call out “unsympathetic” posts, has many wondering whether you lose your job just for speaking your mind. The answer, legally speaking, is messy, but let’s take a look. Just to preface, like I said before, this is primarily about posts that criticize his character. I want to be clear that there is a fine line between celebrating and promoting violence, and criticizing his character. Posts that celebrate or promote violence are in a different category, and this only includes people facing scrutiny for voicing opinions about Kirk’s character.
As we know, Kirk’s death evoked strong emotions on both the right and the left, due to his identity as one of the most influential figures in American politics. Some saw him as a hero, while others thought his rhetoric promoted division in American politics. Now, people are getting fired and doxxed for posts that are only critiques of his morals. It feels unfair, like you can’t have an opinion in a country that boasts “free speech” without risking your paycheck. The First Amendment may seem like it should protect you, but according to the Supreme Court in Hudgens v. NLRB (424 U.S. 507, 1976), it only prevents the government from silencing you, not your private employer. In most states, “at-will” employment means employers can fire you for nearly anything, as long as it’s not tied to categories like race or religion, according to standard labor law principles.
With that being said, there is hope in some corners. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 (29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) protects workers who speak out together about workplace issues. According to the Supreme Court in NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc. (465 U.S. 822, 1984), even a single post could count as “concerted” if it’s meant to rally coworkers. For example, if you tied Kirk’s anti-union views to your company’s policies, then there’s Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), which might help you out if your firing looks like a cover for targeting your race or gender, if, say your post about Kirk also defended a group he criticized. The framework for proving this kind of hidden bias comes from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411 U.S. 792, 1973).
Some states offer more protection. In California, Labor Code § 1101 says employers can’t punish you for your political beliefs or activities. A case called Long Beach Gay & Lesbian Center, Inc. v. City of Long Beach (No. B318232, Cal. Ct. App. 2023) backed this up, overturning a firing over off-duty activism. New York’s Labor Law § 201-d, Colorado’s Revised Statutes § 24-34-402.5, and Connecticut’s General Statutes § 31-40q also shield off-duty political speech, as long as it’s legal and doesn’t mess with the company’s work. Montana’s Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-901 et seq.) requires “good cause” for firings, which could make snap terminations of Kirk posts questionable. And in New Jersey, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:19-1 et seq.) might protect you if your post calls out your employer’s ties to divisive figures like Kirk.
In recent news surrounding my hometown, people are pushing to fire a public school teacher from my local district for posting, “He was a gross, racist, awful person who fueled the fires of division. He didn’t deserve to die, but please stop acting like he was some hero.” Outraged online accounts have called for her firing, taking her words through the screenshots and demanding that her school district act. Can she be fired for this? As a public school employee, her situation is more complicated than a private worker’s because the First Amendment offers some protection when speaking on matters of “public concern.” According to the Supreme Court in Connick v. Myers (461 U.S. 138, 1983), speech by public employees about issues like Kirk’s national influence qualifies as public concern, deserving First Amendment scrutiny. However, this protection isn’t full. In Pickering v. Board of Education (391 U.S. 563, 1968), the Court held that public employers can discipline employees if their speech disrupts the workplace, like if the teacher’s post causes a major uproar among students or parents, undermining her ability to teach effectively without any distractions. Her statement, while critical and harsh, explicitly disavows violence, which definitely strengthens her case. Pennsylvania’s setup leaves most employees very vulnerable, especially in private jobs, where opinions can cost you without much recourse. Public school employees do have a chance to fight under federal constitutional law, but even there, “disruption” is a very slippery slope. If her school district argues the post creates a hostile environment or damages its reputation, they will most likely have grounds to fire her. Her best shot at fighting back would be either focusing on her disavowing violence in the post, or proving the firing was retaliatory or disproportionate, citing Connick or state labor laws.
So, what’s next for the people who’ve lost their jobs over this? In short, lawsuits are very likely. Some might argue their firing was a pretext for other biases, using Title VII or state laws. Public employees could lean on Connick v. Myers (461 U.S. 138, 1983), which says speech about “public concerns,” like Kirk’s role in national debates, gets some protection. Unionized workers might file NLRA claims, saying their posts were part of workplace discussions. In New York City, Local Law 38 (N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(31)) protects political activity and could definitely trigger group lawsuits for lost wages or policy changes.
Public employees, like the teacher who called Kirk “gross” and “racist” but disavowed his death, have a better shot at protection under the First Amendment, according to past Supreme Court cases, since this type of speech addresses public concern. However, Pickering v. Board of Education allows discipline if the post disrupts the workplace, like causing parental backlash. In short, while public workers have some constitutional leverage, both private and public employees in Pennsylvania face real risks for vocalizing dissent about Kirk, with limited and narrow legal recourse unless specific federal or contextual protections apply. Expect to see many wrongful termination lawsuits, and with such a gray area, these cases will be left up to the courts based on how each side frames their position. If the district fires her and she files a lawsuit, I think she’d have a plausible case but not a guaranteed win. Federal courts often lean toward the employer if they can show a significant amount of public backlash or risk to the school’s public reputation. The best precedent she could lean on is Pickering itself, where a teacher’s critical letter about school funding was protected. But unfortunately, unlike Pickering, here the “audience” is the internet, not a local op-ed, which really focuses on the perception of disruption. In Pennsylvania specifically. (an at-will state with no special off-duty speech protections), her odds almost entirely rely on federal constitutional claims. I’d say she might get her case past early dismissal, but whether she wins at trial depends on how much disruption the school can document and prove.
With all of this chaos ensuing, there is some (not so funny) irony in this situation. Kirk’s death is being called an attack on free speech, yet people are getting fired for speaking out about it. When people like Vice President J.D. Vance (backed by Palantir Technologies) urge people to report “offensive” posts, it starts feeling hypocritical. Regular people, like teachers and clerks, are facing unemployment for simply stating a non-violent political opinion. The law offers some paths to fight back, but most workers are left exposed. Should one post, no matter how controversial, cost you your job? As these cases hit the courts, they might force us to rethink what free speech really means in a world where every tweet can end a career.
