6 ms·

People are losing jobs due to social media posts about Charlie Kirk

29 points by _p2zi 1y ago

kstenerud 1y ago
Now the shoe is on the other foot, and hopefully folks on both sides of the aisle are finally understanding why the power to take someone's livelihood over their constitutionally protected speech is such a bad thing.
- delichon 1y ago
  How is "the power to take someone's livelihood over their constitutionally protected speech" distinct from "freedom of association"? Is freedom of association a bad thing? Or do you just want to limit it with respect to firing? How about hiring? Is it ok not to hire people who have values I deplore?
  - ripcjk 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - techpineapple 1y ago
      I think so? If it’s not a specific threat of imminent harm. (Just, to answer your question, I don’t advocate such behavior)
    - jmye 1y ago
      What does that bullshit non sequitur have to do with the post you responded to? Is there some reason you feel compelled to interact in such an abjectly dishonest way?
      - like_any_other 1y ago
        It's not a non-sequitur - people are calling for death [1] (somehow this doesn't get a mention in the NPR article - an honest oversight, I'm sure!), while the post claimed they were being fired for constitutionally protected speech. So it makes sense to ask if calls for death are protected. To answer that question, I think it's close? It's not imminent lawless action or a true threat, which are the usual criteria for when the 1st Amendment doesn't shield speech. But it could be interpreted as instructing someone to commit a crime. But since it could be argued the posters have no reasonable expectation their instructions will be carried out [2], that means it's probably (speculating, I don't know of any precedent on this) protected. In the USA - most other countries are not nearly so permissive. [1] https://thatparkplace.com/bluesky-users-call-for-death-of-donald-trump-j-k-rowling-elon-musk-and-more-after-charlie-kirk-assassination/ https://thatparkplace.com/bluesky-users-call-for-death-of-do... [2] Carried out specifically because they issued them, and not because someone was going to kill Rowling anyway.
- ZeroGravitas 1y ago
  Charlie Kirk himself had a list of academics he was trying to hound out of their jobs as part of his career as a grifting propagandist. He is currently being praised as a champion of free speech. The shoe is not on the other foot. Just the right foot is, as usual, projecting and being dishonest about their own well documented problems. Just as they did before they found out that Kirk was shot by one of their own.
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    > shot by one of their own You are basing this on.. the shell casings with Antifa slogans? Or the high school friend who claims he was "pretty left on everything" [1]? [1] https://gellerreport.com/2025/09/tyler-robinson-was-really-leftist.html/ https://gellerreport.com/2025/09/tyler-robinson-was-really-l...
    - ZeroGravitas 1y ago
      Is this where you get your news from? Wikipedia says: > Pamela Geller (born 1958) is an American anti-Muslim, far-right political activist, blogger and commentator.[1] Geller promoted birther conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama, saying that he was born in Kenya[4] and that he is a Muslim.[5]
      - like_any_other 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ZeroGravitas 1y ago
        The source they cite was retracted, just as the WSJ had to retract their similar reporting. The shooter is a Groyper, a far right sect that has been "warring" with Kirk for a while and disrupting his appearances because they disagree about exactly how openly Fascist they should be. A far right killer from a hardcore MAGA family. The other school shooting that day was also far-right, btw.
- smallerize 1y ago
  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/scholars-under-fire-attempts-sanction-scholars-2000-2022 https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/scholars-under-fire-a... "In 2021, 213 sanction attempts occurred, more than in any other year. This was partially due to Turning Point USA calling on parents and students to contact the institutions of 61 professors featured on their Professor Watchlist website." TPUSA was founded by Kirk.
- bediger4000 1y ago
  If a given action is ethical, then it shouldn't be done, even as a tit-for-tat. This merely exposed the hypocrisy of the self proclaimed free speech absoluists.
  - kstenerud 1y ago
    It's never about freedom; it's always about power - regardless of how people dress it up. That's why a powerful and independent judiciary is so important.
- techpineapple 1y ago
  Why would people learn that? Clearly what people are learning is it’s an effective tactic.
like_any_other 1y ago
> He [..] said that some gun deaths were worth it to have the Second Amendment (cites https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-worth-have-cost-unfortunately-some-gun-deaths-every-single-year-so-we https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-w...) If the authors had bothered to read past the title of their own source, they would know his actual position was: The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. [..] I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. Anyway, Rolling Stone has a different opinion: Why Cancel Culture Is Good For Democracy - https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/opinion-cancel-culture-is-good-for-democracy-1234681224/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/opin...
zerodaysbroker 1y ago
I think it's lame to go after people livelihood over their comments regardless of where you stand from it, unless these comments are direct calls to violence or threats against someone.
- ripcjk 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - techpineapple 1y ago
    And the reaction of a significant portion of the moderate right was to call for war against the left. We all need to calm the fuck down.
  - yawpitch 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - Steltek 1y ago
    > I disagree when it comes to people like teachers who are openly advocating for political violence. Do you think that's a fair characterization of who's getting fired? Was Matt Dowd advocating violence? How were his remarks so offensive that it merited his dismissal?
    - jfghkjhgkjghkjh 1y ago
      "You can't stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place." I think any other mainstream media organization would fire him too for that.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    Kirk did not deserve to be murdered. I want you to understand the hell that a friend of mine went through after being targeted by TPUSA for being a trans professor. Harassment and hate speech in class. Attempts to have them fired. Death threats, hardcore pornography, and extreme gore regularly sent to their email. Kirk advocated for people to be deported for their speech. Is that how we handle things in a liberal democracy?
scaredofwatcher 1y ago
I had created some comments on Charlie Kirk and I immediately deleted them because of this concern. Mind you, I am in high school and am not even american but I just felt like this is such a high profile case that it might result in finally utilizing the spy machine that is social media. Everyone has kissed the ring. As someone who comments on internet a lot. its disheartening because this type of thing can only be extended. Freedom of speech can sometimes be used to restrict other people's freedom of speech in some messy ways like making them lose jobs. For all the america that boasts about its freedom of speech and freedom, frankly the option for most things becomes just this echo chamber esque X or Y and no agreement between anyone. Your freedom of speech on one topic makes you get a label that you then have to live through and that it can impact your lives. I don't know what this phenomenon is called but I just feel like extremism is being spread in the name of freedom of speech from both sides of america in some sense. We have created a system where people have to agree to a political party on all of its opinions and you can't have disagreements and agreements at the same time. So we've have had people just give up in the political process and felt as if the only thing that matters is competency. Frankly, competency is being curbed in the sense that things are being cherry picked now. Stock market is doing good when from what I know the job market is doing absolutely bad. This is meta commentary on politics itself. If such polarization makes democracy give power to people who can look "competent", and the voting choices are limited and you are influenced 24x7 by algorithms you can't control. I guess its not good. I feel as if nobody is commenting on the social issues except bernie and mamdani yet are talking about everything else. What I like about mamdani is that his campaign was built on the idea of true competence in the sense that he shows how he would actually fix the issues instead of just wishy washing that he's going to do it. Trump's epstein's files competence comes to my mind lmao.
- mkfs 1y ago
  I think you're being overly paranoid, but I do like the idea of someone in HS being prudent enough to NOT use their real name (or something that can be tied back to it) when trolling or edge-lording online, or just doing stuff online in general.
  - scaredofwatcher 1y ago
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
There seems to be a lot of hypocrisy in the different treatment of the killings of Melissa Hortman (and husband) and Charlie Kirk.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  Yesterday, Fox News advocated "involuntary lethal injection" for innocent homeless people (that post has been flagged and [dead] already). They certainly won't be fired. The day Kirk died, Fox was quite literally calling for war. Then when we found out it was a conservative shooter, it's still the left's fault because them not mourning Kirk is worse than the killing and the President says he "couldn't care less" about bridging the divide between Americans. It's just ridiculous how brazen it is at this point.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > Yesterday, Fox News No, one specific show host. > for innocent homeless people No, specifically for those who are mentally ill, and only if they refuse help. Still abhorrent, but also unrelated. > The day Kirk died, Fox was quite literally calling for war. I legitimately have no idea what you're referring to. > Then when we found out it was a conservative shooter, it's still the left's fault Shootings are the fault of the shooter and no other person. We did not find out that the shooter is conservative. This is speculation, and many of the initial bases for this speculation were quite spurious. > because them not mourning Kirk is worse than the killing As far as I can tell, nobody has said anything remotely like this. > the President says he "couldn't care less" about bridging the divide between Americans. The political divide. And it's not clear what he could in principle do about it.
    - TimorousBestie 1y ago
      > No, one specific show host. In his role as a spokesperson of the network, at a performance he has not yet been censured for, afaik. Until Fox puts out a response, he represents them. > I legitimately have no idea what you're referring to. Jesse Watters called for vengeance and retribution on The Five, said that liberals are “at war with us.” GP is a reasonable rephrasing. > The political divide. And it's not clear what he could in principle do about it. Use the “bully pulpit” of the presidency positively for once? He’s the least powerless person in the country. No president before has ever wielded the power and authority he does.
mkfs 1y ago
I was only vaguely aware of Kirk before this, and I could easily see most "normies" being even less aware, but according to reddit, he was practically Goebbels[1] or Himmler, and we collectively dodged a bullet by him taking one. Leftists would really do well here to just shut up. Normal people aren't going to be convinced by your quote mining that Kirk deserved what happened to him, especially in the presence of his wife and kids, and when he was offering dialog. Hasan Piker, for example, said America deserved 9/11--do you think he deserves to die for that? To put it bluntly, the average terminally online reddit/bluesky leftist should realize that they're not normal, and that to a normal person, Kirk will come off as a decent, rightwing (but not overly so) Christian family man, even a bit boring. Meanwhile transgendered people (elated at his death) are generally perceived as "weird" and "gross"--a perception their grave-dancing isn't helping. The optics are really bad. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/1nfv81d/coldplay_fans_disappointed_after_chris_martin/ndztjzu/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/1nfv81d/coldplay_fan...
- twixfel 1y ago
  He didn't deserve to die; Charlie Kirk was quite an awful, abnormal, un-christian man. These are not conflicting ideas.
  - mkfs 1y ago
    Your post validates the classic "Conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil" observation. You say Kirk was > quite an awful, abnormal, un-christian man based on what? From what I can see, he was devoted to his wife and kids, was law-abiding, and was generally well-liked by his colleagues, many of whom regarded him as a friend. Hasan Piker, Mr. "America deserved 9/11," takes good care of his dogs, and seems to have healthy friendships with other streamers and generally good relations with family (like Cenk). Neither of them are "awful," though both were and are flawed (e.g., Hasan's grossly hypocritical "Champaign socialism" and his occasionally extremist rhetoric).
    - twixfel 1y ago
      Based on the things he said and the things he advocated for I consider him to have been a bad, unchristian man. I am not on the left, I am closer to a classical liberal.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

29 points by _p2zi 1y ago

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and hopefully folks on both sides of the aisle are finally understanding why the power to take someone's livelihood over their constitutionally protected speech is such a bad thing.

delichon 1y ago
How is "the power to take someone's livelihood over their constitutionally protected speech" distinct from "freedom of association"? Is freedom of association a bad thing? Or do you just want to limit it with respect to firing? How about hiring? Is it ok not to hire people who have values I deplore?
- ripcjk 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - techpineapple 1y ago
    I think so? If it’s not a specific threat of imminent harm. (Just, to answer your question, I don’t advocate such behavior)
  - jmye 1y ago
    What does that bullshit non sequitur have to do with the post you responded to? Is there some reason you feel compelled to interact in such an abjectly dishonest way?
    - like_any_other 1y ago
      It's not a non-sequitur - people are calling for death [1] (somehow this doesn't get a mention in the NPR article - an honest oversight, I'm sure!), while the post claimed they were being fired for constitutionally protected speech. So it makes sense to ask if calls for death are protected. To answer that question, I think it's close? It's not imminent lawless action or a true threat, which are the usual criteria for when the 1st Amendment doesn't shield speech. But it could be interpreted as instructing someone to commit a crime. But since it could be argued the posters have no reasonable expectation their instructions will be carried out [2], that means it's probably (speculating, I don't know of any precedent on this) protected. In the USA - most other countries are not nearly so permissive. [1] https://thatparkplace.com/bluesky-users-call-for-death-of-donald-trump-j-k-rowling-elon-musk-and-more-after-charlie-kirk-assassination/ https://thatparkplace.com/bluesky-users-call-for-death-of-do... [2] Carried out specifically because they issued them, and not because someone was going to kill Rowling anyway.
ZeroGravitas 1y ago
Charlie Kirk himself had a list of academics he was trying to hound out of their jobs as part of his career as a grifting propagandist. He is currently being praised as a champion of free speech. The shoe is not on the other foot. Just the right foot is, as usual, projecting and being dishonest about their own well documented problems. Just as they did before they found out that Kirk was shot by one of their own.
- like_any_other 1y ago
  > shot by one of their own You are basing this on.. the shell casings with Antifa slogans? Or the high school friend who claims he was "pretty left on everything" [1]? [1] https://gellerreport.com/2025/09/tyler-robinson-was-really-leftist.html/ https://gellerreport.com/2025/09/tyler-robinson-was-really-l...
  - ZeroGravitas 1y ago
    Is this where you get your news from? Wikipedia says: > Pamela Geller (born 1958) is an American anti-Muslim, far-right political activist, blogger and commentator.[1] Geller promoted birther conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama, saying that he was born in Kenya[4] and that he is a Muslim.[5]
    - like_any_other 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ZeroGravitas 1y ago
        The source they cite was retracted, just as the WSJ had to retract their similar reporting. The shooter is a Groyper, a far right sect that has been "warring" with Kirk for a while and disrupting his appearances because they disagree about exactly how openly Fascist they should be. A far right killer from a hardcore MAGA family. The other school shooting that day was also far-right, btw.
smallerize 1y ago
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/scholars-under-fire-attempts-sanction-scholars-2000-2022 https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/scholars-under-fire-a... "In 2021, 213 sanction attempts occurred, more than in any other year. This was partially due to Turning Point USA calling on parents and students to contact the institutions of 61 professors featured on their Professor Watchlist website." TPUSA was founded by Kirk.
bediger4000 1y ago
If a given action is ethical, then it shouldn't be done, even as a tit-for-tat. This merely exposed the hypocrisy of the self proclaimed free speech absoluists.
- kstenerud 1y ago
  It's never about freedom; it's always about power - regardless of how people dress it up. That's why a powerful and independent judiciary is so important.
techpineapple 1y ago
Why would people learn that? Clearly what people are learning is it’s an effective tactic.

like_any_other 1y ago

> He [..] said that some gun deaths were worth it to have the Second Amendment (cites https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-worth-have-cost-unfortunately-some-gun-deaths-every-single-year-so-we https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-w...) If the authors had bothered to read past the title of their own source, they would know his actual position was: The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. [..] I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. Anyway, Rolling Stone has a different opinion: Why Cancel Culture Is Good For Democracy - https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/opinion-cancel-culture-is-good-for-democracy-1234681224/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/opin...

zerodaysbroker 1y ago

I think it's lame to go after people livelihood over their comments regardless of where you stand from it, unless these comments are direct calls to violence or threats against someone.

ripcjk 1y ago
[flagged]
- techpineapple 1y ago
  And the reaction of a significant portion of the moderate right was to call for war against the left. We all need to calm the fuck down.
- yawpitch 1y ago
  [flagged]
- Steltek 1y ago
  > I disagree when it comes to people like teachers who are openly advocating for political violence. Do you think that's a fair characterization of who's getting fired? Was Matt Dowd advocating violence? How were his remarks so offensive that it merited his dismissal?
  - jfghkjhgkjghkjh 1y ago
    "You can't stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place." I think any other mainstream media organization would fire him too for that.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  Kirk did not deserve to be murdered. I want you to understand the hell that a friend of mine went through after being targeted by TPUSA for being a trans professor. Harassment and hate speech in class. Attempts to have them fired. Death threats, hardcore pornography, and extreme gore regularly sent to their email. Kirk advocated for people to be deported for their speech. Is that how we handle things in a liberal democracy?

scaredofwatcher 1y ago

I had created some comments on Charlie Kirk and I immediately deleted them because of this concern. Mind you, I am in high school and am not even american but I just felt like this is such a high profile case that it might result in finally utilizing the spy machine that is social media. Everyone has kissed the ring. As someone who comments on internet a lot. its disheartening because this type of thing can only be extended. Freedom of speech can sometimes be used to restrict other people's freedom of speech in some messy ways like making them lose jobs. For all the america that boasts about its freedom of speech and freedom, frankly the option for most things becomes just this echo chamber esque X or Y and no agreement between anyone. Your freedom of speech on one topic makes you get a label that you then have to live through and that it can impact your lives. I don't know what this phenomenon is called but I just feel like extremism is being spread in the name of freedom of speech from both sides of america in some sense. We have created a system where people have to agree to a political party on all of its opinions and you can't have disagreements and agreements at the same time. So we've have had people just give up in the political process and felt as if the only thing that matters is competency. Frankly, competency is being curbed in the sense that things are being cherry picked now. Stock market is doing good when from what I know the job market is doing absolutely bad. This is meta commentary on politics itself. If such polarization makes democracy give power to people who can look "competent", and the voting choices are limited and you are influenced 24x7 by algorithms you can't control. I guess its not good. I feel as if nobody is commenting on the social issues except bernie and mamdani yet are talking about everything else. What I like about mamdani is that his campaign was built on the idea of true competence in the sense that he shows how he would actually fix the issues instead of just wishy washing that he's going to do it. Trump's epstein's files competence comes to my mind lmao.

mkfs 1y ago
I think you're being overly paranoid, but I do like the idea of someone in HS being prudent enough to NOT use their real name (or something that can be tied back to it) when trolling or edge-lording online, or just doing stuff online in general.
- scaredofwatcher 1y ago

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago

There seems to be a lot of hypocrisy in the different treatment of the killings of Melissa Hortman (and husband) and Charlie Kirk.

Tadpole9181 1y ago
Yesterday, Fox News advocated "involuntary lethal injection" for innocent homeless people (that post has been flagged and [dead] already). They certainly won't be fired. The day Kirk died, Fox was quite literally calling for war. Then when we found out it was a conservative shooter, it's still the left's fault because them not mourning Kirk is worse than the killing and the President says he "couldn't care less" about bridging the divide between Americans. It's just ridiculous how brazen it is at this point.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Yesterday, Fox News No, one specific show host. > for innocent homeless people No, specifically for those who are mentally ill, and only if they refuse help. Still abhorrent, but also unrelated. > The day Kirk died, Fox was quite literally calling for war. I legitimately have no idea what you're referring to. > Then when we found out it was a conservative shooter, it's still the left's fault Shootings are the fault of the shooter and no other person. We did not find out that the shooter is conservative. This is speculation, and many of the initial bases for this speculation were quite spurious. > because them not mourning Kirk is worse than the killing As far as I can tell, nobody has said anything remotely like this. > the President says he "couldn't care less" about bridging the divide between Americans. The political divide. And it's not clear what he could in principle do about it.
  - TimorousBestie 1y ago
    > No, one specific show host. In his role as a spokesperson of the network, at a performance he has not yet been censured for, afaik. Until Fox puts out a response, he represents them. > I legitimately have no idea what you're referring to. Jesse Watters called for vengeance and retribution on The Five, said that liberals are “at war with us.” GP is a reasonable rephrasing. > The political divide. And it's not clear what he could in principle do about it. Use the “bully pulpit” of the presidency positively for once? He’s the least powerless person in the country. No president before has ever wielded the power and authority he does.

mkfs 1y ago

I was only vaguely aware of Kirk before this, and I could easily see most "normies" being even less aware, but according to reddit, he was practically Goebbels[1] or Himmler, and we collectively dodged a bullet by him taking one. Leftists would really do well here to just shut up. Normal people aren't going to be convinced by your quote mining that Kirk deserved what happened to him, especially in the presence of his wife and kids, and when he was offering dialog. Hasan Piker, for example, said America deserved 9/11--do you think he deserves to die for that? To put it bluntly, the average terminally online reddit/bluesky leftist should realize that they're not normal, and that to a normal person, Kirk will come off as a decent, rightwing (but not overly so) Christian family man, even a bit boring. Meanwhile transgendered people (elated at his death) are generally perceived as "weird" and "gross"--a perception their grave-dancing isn't helping. The optics are really bad. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/1nfv81d/coldplay_fans_disappointed_after_chris_martin/ndztjzu/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/1nfv81d/coldplay_fan...

twixfel 1y ago
He didn't deserve to die; Charlie Kirk was quite an awful, abnormal, un-christian man. These are not conflicting ideas.
- mkfs 1y ago
  Your post validates the classic "Conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil" observation. You say Kirk was > quite an awful, abnormal, un-christian man based on what? From what I can see, he was devoted to his wife and kids, was law-abiding, and was generally well-liked by his colleagues, many of whom regarded him as a friend. Hasan Piker, Mr. "America deserved 9/11," takes good care of his dogs, and seems to have healthy friendships with other streamers and generally good relations with family (like Cenk). Neither of them are "awful," though both were and are flawed (e.g., Hasan's grossly hypocritical "Champaign socialism" and his occasionally extremist rhetoric).
  - twixfel 1y ago
    Based on the things he said and the things he advocated for I consider him to have been a bad, unchristian man. I am not on the left, I am closer to a classical liberal.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]