Workers fired following comments online surrounding Charlie Kirk shooting
Political commentator Charlie Kirk was killed while on stage last week
Featured Image Credit: PHILL MAGAKOE/AFP via Getty Images
Workers have been fired from their jobs across the US following comments made online surrounding the Charlie Kirk shooting.
This includes the likes of Matthew Dowd, who up until recently was a political analyst for MSNBC.
Kirk was shot and killed last week while on stage at Utah Valley University (UVU) as part of his ‘American Comeback’ tour.
The political commentator was known for being outspoken on his rightwing viewers, with his appearance at the university sparking over 1,000 signatures on a petition calling for the tour to be banned.
Advert
However, the event went ahead Kirk was answering a question on gun control to a 3,000-strong crowd when he was shot in the neck.
During the event, he had been asked by an audience member: “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last ten years?”
Kirk replied: “Counting or not counting gang violence?”
The shot could be heard immediately after and videos captured the political pundit falling from his seat after being struck in his neck.
It was later confirmed that Kirk had died from his injuries sustained in the gunshot wound.
A manhunt was conducted by the FBI and 33 hours later, 22 year old Tyler Robinson was arrested under suspicion of murder.
Since then, many people have been let go from their jobs over comments they made online about the incident.
Speaking to the Independent, Vanessa Matsis-McCready, who is the associate general counsel and vice president of HR Services for Engage PEO, explained why, saying: “Most people think they have a right to free speech…but that doesn’t necessarily apply in the workplace.
“Most employees in the private sector do not have any protections for that type of speech at work.”
Andrew Kragie, who is an attorney that specializes in employment and labor law at Maynard Nexse, added: “The First Amendment does not apply in private workplaces to protect employees’ speech.
“It actually does protect employers’ right to make decisions about employees, based on employees’ speech.”
Matsis-McCreedy went on to say: “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.”
She continued: “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.”