XPost: alt.freespeech, talk.politics.guns, sac.politics   
   XPost: alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.trump   
   From: leroysoetoro@americans-first.com   
      
   https://fortune.com/2025/09/14/charlie-kirk-assassination-private-sector-   
   employees-free-speech-rights-workplace/   
      
   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.   
      
   It’s far from the first time workers have lost their jobs over things they   
   say publicly — including in social media posts. 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 statues 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 — and the Supreme Court has ruled that if an   
   employee is acting in a private capacity but speaking on a matter of   
   public concern, they’re protected.   
      
   However, that has yet to stop the public sector from restricting 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.   
      
   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.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)