In the aftermath of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s fatal shooting, a wave of controversy has erupted as several employees—including MSNBC political analyst Matthew Dowd—have lost their jobs over comments they made regarding his death.
In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s death, several conservative activists have scoured social media to identify users whose posts they deemed offensive or celebratory, targeting everyone from journalists to educators. Right-wing influencer Laura Loomer publicly vowed to undermine the professional prospects of anyone found celebrating Kirk’s passing.
Workers losing their jobs over public statements—including social media posts—is not unprecedented. Yet the rapid pace of these recent dismissals has sparked intense debate over the balance between employee rights and employer authority.
Across the United States, laws differ from state to state, yet employees generally have minimal legal protection when disciplined for speech—whether made inside the workplace or beyond its walls.
“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.”
Compounding the issue is the rise of social media, which has made it increasingly common to monitor employees’ actions outside of work and to dox individuals—publicly sharing personal information online with the intent to harass or harm.
Employers have a lot of leeway
Worker protections differ from state to state. In New York, for instance, employees who take part in a political protest on the weekend—without directly linking themselves to their employer—cannot be fired for that activity upon returning to work.
However, if that same employee expresses their political views at a company event on the weekend in a manner that makes others feel unsafe or subject to discrimination or harassment, they could face workplace consequences, Matsis-McCready warned.
In most of the United States, "at-will" employment prevails—allowing employers broad discretion to hire or fire employees, including for the content of their 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 noted that there are 'pockets of protection' across the U.S. under various state laws, including statutes that prohibit penalizing workers for their political beliefs. However, he cautioned that enforcement can vary widely, leaving the legal landscape uncertain and complex.
Steven T. Collis, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin and faculty director of the Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center, highlights state laws that protect employees from being fired for "legal off-duty conduct." Yet, he warns, exceptions often exist for behavior deemed disruptive to a company’s business or reputation—potentially putting workers at risk for dismissal over public statements or social media activity.
“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—including teachers, postal workers, and elected officials—the rules differ. The First Amendment plays a distinct role when the government is the employer, Collis explains. The Supreme Court has ruled that employees speaking in a private capacity on matters of public concern may receive protection. Nevertheless, he cautions, government employers can still discipline workers if such conduct is deemed to hinder the government’s ability to perform its duties.
In the wake of Kirk’s death, some public-sector authorities have moved to curb speech. Pentagon leaders, for example, introduced a "zero tolerance" policy prohibiting troops from making posts or comments that trivialize or celebrate Kirk’s killing.
The Pentagon’s new policy was announced on social media Thursday by its top spokesman, Sean Parnell, just hours after numerous conservative military influencers and activists began sending him and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posts they deemed offensive or problematic.
“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 widespread use of social media has made it easier than ever to voice opinions on politics and breaking news. Yet these posts create a permanent record, and amid rising political polarization, such statements can be perceived as harmful to the reputation of both the individual and 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 no longer confined to social media—they are increasingly spilling 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
Amid the U.S.’s tense and polarized climate, many human resource professionals admit they feel unprepared to manage politically charged discussions at work, according to the Human Resource Certification Institute. Yet, Dufrane emphasizes, such conversations are inevitable, making it essential for employers to establish clear policies defining acceptable and unacceptable workplace conduct.
“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.
She noted that many employers are reassessing their policies on political speech and offering training to clarify what constitutes appropriate conduct, both within and beyond the workplace. The shocking and violent nature of Kirk’s death may have also prompted some organizations to respond more decisively in the days that followed.
“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 are often viewed as representatives of their company’s brand, and their political statements can, depending on content and public perception, tarnish that image. She explained that this concern is prompting more companies to monitor and respond to what their employees post online.
“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.
Nevertheless, experts such as Collis do not expect a major shift in how employers oversee employees’ speech, observing that online activity has been under scrutiny for at least the past 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.
