Plenty didn't need the nudge. Within 24 hours of Kirk's killing, employers nationwide—from media outlets to universities, airlines to retailers—were disciplining or firing staff over posts deemed "insensitive" or "celebratory" of his death.
A cottage industry of doxxing quickly formed. A site originally branded Expose Charlie's Murderers (since rebranded Charlie Kirk Data Foundation for obvious legal reasons) began cataloging names, employers, and posts. Activists like Laura Loomer pledged to ruin careers.
This isn’t new. Employers—especially private-sector, at-will employers—have long had broad discretion to discipline or terminate employees over speech. The concern is almost always reputational harm: the fallout from a negative viral post. And it bears repeating, the 1st Amendment restricts government, not private employers.
What is new is the speed and scale of what we're witnessing now.
That's why employers need to pause before rushing to judgment. A call, email, or tweet demanding someone's termination isn't a reason to fire—it's a trigger for process. Investigate. Assess context. Ask: does this post truly violate policy, clash with our values, or create a real problem in the workplace or for the business?
There's a critical difference between celebrating Kirk’s death (wrong and offensive) and challenging his beliefs and opinions (always appropriate).
As a management-side employment lawyer, I'll always defend an employer's right to protect itself and its brand. But I also counsel restraint. Employers shouldn't allow themselves to become the deputized enforcers of online outrage mobs. Today the demand might be over a post about Charlie Kirk. Tomorrow it could be about an entirely different issue—one just as politically charged.
On X, Lindsey Graham wrote: "Free speech doesn't prevent you from being fired if you're stupid and have poor judgment." He's 100% correct. But the responsibility falls on employers to decide when and what consequences are appropriate. Not every ill-timed, tone-deaf, or unpopular post should cost someone their livelihood.
The challenge for employers isn't silencing employees—it's knowing when speech truly crosses the line. If outrage mobs are running your HR department, you're already doing it wrong.