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

14 Improvement 12 9/13/2025, 11:12:04 AM npr.org ↗

Comments (12)

zerodaysbroker · 1h 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.

No comments yet

scaredofwatcher · 20m 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.

kstenerud · 2h 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.
smallerize · 1h ago
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.
delichon · 2h 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?

No comments yet

bediger4000 · 59m 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.
ZeroGravitas · 1h 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 · 1h 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-l...

ZeroGravitas · 1h 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 · 21m ago
Well you're not disputing the shell casings, and you're not disputing he shot someone on the right, which are both strong evidence of left-wing motivation on their own. Additionally, the Geller article you so distrust cites its sources, which you are free to verify. So I'll ask you again - on what are you basing your assertion that he was right-wing?

Edit as reply: You have not offered a single source for your assertions.

ZeroGravitas · 4m 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.

like_any_other · 2h 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-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/opin...