skip to contentAdvertisementBy: Express Web Desk September 14, 2025 10:53 PM IST First published on: Sep 14, 2025 at 10:44 PM ISTJoinShare ShareWhatsapptwitterFacebookConservative activist Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah University event. (Photo: AP)Following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, numerous individuals in the US have faced severe professional repercussions, including job losses, due to their online comments regarding his death, highlighting the thin line between free speech and workplace rules.Among those dismissed were MSNBC political analyst Matthew Dowd. Conservative activists have been actively flagging online posts they considered offensive or celebratory. Right-wing influencer Laura Loomer went so far as to say she would work to damage the careers of anyone who expressed joy over Kirk’s killing.It is not the first time workers have been dismissed for things said publicly, including on social media. But the speed of the firings has raised questions about the rights of employees versus the rights of employers.“There is a common belief that people have a right to free speech, but that doesn’t necessarily apply at work,” Vanessa Matsis-McCready, associate general counsel and vice president of HR Services for Engage PEO, told the Associated Press (AP). “Most employees in the private sector do not have protections for that type of speech at work.”Few protections under lawIn the US, most employment is “at will,” meaning employers can hire or dismiss workers largely at their discretion, including over things said in public or online.“The First Amendment does not apply in private workplaces to protect employees’ speech,” Andrew Kragie, an employment lawyer at Maynard Nexsen, told AP. “It actually protects employers’ right to make decisions about employees, based on employees’ speech.”Some states have limited protections. For example, New York law bars employers from firing workers who take part in political activity outside work. But if a worker expresses political views at a company event in a way that others feel unsafe or targeted, they could still face disciplinary action, Matsis-McCready explained.Steven T Collis, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said some states prevent employers from punishing workers for legal activities outside work. But he told AP there are often exceptions for behaviour seen as harmful to an employer’s reputation.“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.Government employees, such as teachers, postal workers or soldiers, are subject to different standards. The US Supreme Court has ruled that they can sometimes be protected if speaking on matters of public concern in a private capacity. Still, government employers can take action if they believe the conduct interferes with their ability to operate.In response to Kirk’s death, the Pentagon said it would not tolerate comments from service members that make light of the killing. Defence Department spokesman Sean Parnell wrote on social media: “It is unacceptable for military personnel and Department of War civilians to celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American.”Social media and workplace speechExperts say the rise of social media has blurred the lines between public and private speech. “People don’t realise when they’re on social media, it is the town square,” Amy Dufrane, head of the Human Resource Certification Institute, told AP. “They’re not having a private conversation with the neighbour over the fence. They’re really broadcasting their views.”Political debate is also entering the workplace through platforms like Slack or Microsoft Teams, Matsis-McCready noted, which resemble social media and may make workers feel less restricted.Many employers are reviewing their rules on political speech and providing staff training. Dufrane said organisations need to be clear about what is acceptable: “HR has got to really drill down and make sure that they’re super clear on their policies and practices.”Most ReadMatsis-McCready added that employers may react strongly when political debate touches on violent events, “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.”Employees are often seen as representatives of a company, and controversial speech can quickly draw public attention. “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 told AP.Collis noted that employers have long monitored workers’ online activity. “Employers are already and have been for a very long time, vetting employees based on what they’re posting on social media,” he said.AdvertisementAdvertisementYou May Like