Workers commenting on Kirk's death learn the limits of free speech in
and out of their jobs
[September 15, 2025] By
CATHY BUSSEWITZ and WYATTE GRANTHAM-PHILIPS
NEW YORK (AP) — In the days following the fatal shooting of conservative
activist Charlie Kirk, numerous workers have been fired for their
comments on his death, among them MSNBC political analyst Matthew Dowd.
Several conservative activists have sought to identify social media
users whose posts about Kirk they viewed as offensive or celebratory,
targeting everyone from journalists to teachers. Right-wing influencer
Laura Loomer said she would try to ruin the professional aspirations of
anyone who celebrated Kirk’s death.
It's far from the first time workers have lost their jobs over things
they say publicly — including in social media posts. But the speed at
which the firings have been happening raises questions about worker
rights versus employer rights.
In the U.S., laws can vary across states, but overall, there’s very
little legal protections for employees who are punished for speech made
both in and out of private workplaces.
“Most people think they have a right to free speech…but that doesn’t
necessarily apply in the workplace,” said Vanessa Matsis-McCready,
associate general counsel and vice president of HR Services for Engage
PEO. “Most employees in the private sector do not have any protections
for that type of speech at work.”
Add to that the prevalence of social media, which has made it
increasingly common to track employees’ conduct outside of work and to
dox people, or publish information about them online with the intent of
harming or harassing them.
Employers have a lot of leeway
Protections for workers vary from one state to the next. For example, in
New York, if an employee is participating in a weekend political
protest, but not associating themselves with the organization that
employs them, their employer cannot fire them for that activity when
they return to work.
But if that same employee is at a company event on a weekend and talks
about their political viewpoints in a way that makes others feel unsafe
or the target of discrimination or harassment, then they could face
consequences at work, Matsis-McCready said.
Most of the U.S. defaults to “at-will” employment law — which
essentially means employers can choose to hire and fire as they see fit,
including over employees' speech.
“The First Amendment does not apply in private workplaces to protect
employees’ speech," said Andrew Kragie, an attorney who specializes in
employment and labor law at Maynard Nexsen. "It actually does protect
employers’ right to make decisions about employees, based on employees’
speech.”
Kragie said there are “pockets of protection” around the U.S. under
various state laws, such as statutes that forbid punishing workers for
their political views. But the interpretation of how that gets enforced
changes, he notes, making the waters murky.
Steven T. Collis, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin
and faculty director of the school’s Bech-Loughlin First Amendment
Center, also points to some state laws that say employers can’t fire
their workers for “legal off duty conduct.” But there’s often an
exception for conduct seen as disruptive to an employer’s business or
reputation, which could be grounds to fire someone over public comments
or social media posts.
“In this scenario, if somebody feels like one of their employees has
done something that suggests they are glorifying or celebrating a
murder, an employer might still be able to fire them even with one of
those laws on the books,” Collis said.
For public employees, which can range from school teachers and postal
workers to elected officials, the process is a bit different. That’s
because the First Amendment plays a unique role when the government is
the employer, Collis explains. The Supreme Court has ruled that if an
employee is acting in a private capacity but speaking on a matter of
public concern, they could be protected. Still, he noted that government
employers can discipline a worker if they determine such conduct will
interfere with the government’s ability to do its job.
Some in the public sector have already worked to restrict speech in the
aftermath of Kirk's death. For instance, leaders at the Pentagon
unveiled a “zero tolerance” policy for any posts or comments from troops
that make light of or celebrate the killing of Kirk.
[to top of second column] |
Charlie Kirk speaks at Texas A&M University as part of Turning Point
USA's American Comeback Tour, April 22, 2025, in College Station,
Texas. (Meredith Seaver/College Station Eagle via AP, File)
 The policy, announced by the
Pentagon’s top spokesman Sean Parnell on social media Thursday, came
hours after numerous conservative military influencers and activists
began forwarding posts they considered problematic to Parnell and
his boss, defense secretary Pete Hegseth.
“It is unacceptable for military personnel and
Department of War civilians to celebrate or mock the assassination
of a fellow American,” Parnell wrote Thursday.
A surge of political debate
The ubiquity of social media is making it easier than ever to share
opinions about politics and major news events as they're unfolding.
But posting on social media leaves a record, and in times of
escalating political polarization, those declarations can be seen as
damaging to the reputation of an individual or their employer.
“People don’t realize when they’re on social media, it is the town
square,” said Amy Dufrane, CEO of the Human Resource Certification
Institute. “They’re not having a private conversation with the
neighbor over the fence. They’re really broadcasting their views.”
Political debates are certainly not limited to social media and are
increasingly making their way into the workplace as well.
“The gamification of the way we communicate in the workplace, Slack
and Teams, chat and all these things, they’re very similar to how
you might interact on Instagram or other social media, so I do think
that makes it feel a little less formal and somebody might be more
inclined to take to take a step and say, 'Oh, I can’t believe this
happened,'” Matsis-McCready said.
Employers are not ready
In the tense, divided climate of the U.S., many human resource
professionals have expressed that they're unprepared to address
politically charged discussions in the workplace, according to the
Human Resource Certification Institute. But those conversations are
going to happen, so employers need to set policies about what is
acceptable or unacceptable workplace conduct, Dufrane said.
“HR has got to really drill down and make sure that they’re super
clear on their policies and practices and communicating to their
employees on what are their responsibilities as an employee of the
organization,” Dufrane said.
Many employers are reviewing their policies on political speech and
providing training about what appropriate conduct looks like, both
inside and outside the organization, she said. And the brutal nature
of Kirk's killing may have led some of them to react more strongly
in the days that followed his death.
“Because of the violent nature of what some political discussion is
now about, I think there is a real concern from employers that they
want to keep the workplace safe and that they’re being extra
vigilant about anything that could be viewed as a threat, which is
their duty,” Matsis-McCreedy said.
Employees can also be seen as ambassadors of a company’s brand, and
their political speech can dilute that brand and hurt its
reputation, depending on what is being said and how it is being
received. That is leading more companies to act on what employees
are saying online, she said.
“Some of the individuals that had posted and their posts went viral,
all of a sudden the phone lines of their employers were just nonstop
calls complaining,” Matsis-McCready said.
Still, experts like Collis don’t anticipate a significant change in
how employers monitor their workers speech — noting that online
activity has come under the spotlight for at least the last 15
years.
“Employers are already and have been for a very long time, vetting
employees based on what they’re posting on social media,” he said.
____
Associated Press Staff Writer Konstantin Toropin in Washington
contributed to this report.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
