Since the rise of social media, people have been fired for what they have said online. In the early days, that often meant posts about political leaders, with some losing jobs after making threats or inappropriate remarks about Presidents Bush or Obama. The lesson has always been that what you say in a public forum can carry real consequences. The First Amendment prevents government retaliation for speech, but it does not shield employees from the decisions of their employers. Right or wrong, businesses have wide latitude to terminate employment for almost any reason, including the public comments their workers make.
What is different in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination is the organized campaign to track and punish individuals for their reactions. Firings and suspensions have swept across industries, from universities to media companies to federal agencies, as comments about Kirk’s death sparked political backlash. It is one thing for a business to distance itself from an employee who directly violates workplace policy, but another entirely for groups of online vigilantes to target thousands of people for discipline. That smacks of McCarthyism, where political enemies were cataloged and reported with the goal of destroying reputations and livelihoods.
The fact that Kirk was such a polarizing figure only adds to the fire. Whether someone admired him or opposed him, there is no denying that his killing was the first major assassination of a political figure in the United States since the advent of social media. That reality has made this tragedy a unique flashpoint. The immediacy of platforms like X and Facebook means that every reaction, from grief to anger to glee, was not only expressed but also preserved, shared, and amplified. Unlike in the past, when discussions might have stayed in private circles, today every remark can find its way to a global audience within seconds.
Social media has given everyone a voice, but it has also created the illusion that every thought demands to be spoken aloud. In moments like this, that illusion becomes dangerous. People may think they are offering a personal aside when in truth they are broadcasting a statement that can be scrutinized by employers, politicians, or even organized groups bent on retribution. The result is a cycle where anger fuels more anger and the space for measured dialogue continues to shrink.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk is already reshaping conversations about political violence, free speech, and professional accountability. Yet it also offers a reminder that words do not exist in a vacuum. They can cost careers, inflame divisions, and even be weaponized by others. Perhaps the most important takeaway is not only the need for fair policies and consistent protections but also the personal responsibility to pause before hitting post. Just because you can share a thought does not always mean you should.
—By Greg Collier
