The memorial for Charlie Kirk at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, on Sept. 11, 2025.

Judgment came quickly for some social media commenters across the country over posts about Charlie Kirk in the days after his death.

A Phoenix sportswriter, a University of Mississippi faculty member, school employees in Idaho, Indiana and South Carolina, emergency workers, a theater professor and other university employees in Tennessee, and a Marine Corps recruiter have been among the professionals fired, suspended or put on leave over social media posts some people found offensive.

American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Clemson University, The Joe Burrow Foundation and the Carolina Panthers were among organizations across the country that took action over social media posts by employees. In Nashville, leadership of a prominent restaurant group said staffers' comments had led to their terminations.

Meanwhile, many Republican elected officials have urged accountability and praised the swift action to discipline employees. A website was even created after Kirk's death that allowed users to submit and catalog examples of people's comments about Kirk online. The website administrators did not immediately return a request for comment. As of Sept. 15, the website was inactive.

In Indiana, Attorney General Todd Rokita asked people to report teachers who "celebrate or rationalize" Kirk's killing so they can be included in his office's government dashboard. The platform has been used to list and condemn instances of "objectionable" political ideology entering the classroom.

"These individuals must be held accountable − they have no place teaching our students," Rokita, a Republican, said in the post on X.

Such comments, even those considered offensive, are largely protected free speech. But the First Amendment does not inoculate people against actions private employers or institutions take, and experts worry that the creation of such lists will chill legal speech and motivate actions that violate someone's constitutional rights.

"It is bad enough when we see these calls to punish people for speech," said Jonathan Friedman of PEN America, a leading free speech group. "It is another when we see politicians doing it and suggesting that they're going to use the machinery of government to implement it."

Kirk died on the debate stage

Kirk, 31, was shot Sept. 10 on the campus of Utah Valley University during an event for the conservative media empire Turning Point USA. Tyler Robinson, 22, was arrested after a 33-hour manhunt.

Kirk's events brought the conservative movement to younger generations in unprecedented numbers, largely a result of his viral "prove me wrong" debate tents and massive social media outreach that prided itself on free and open debate − even as he faced criticism over his stances on issues such as race and gun control.

Actions after his death don't mark the first time such an event has led to consequences over related speech, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a major First Amendment advocacy group.

There were calls to fire a Fresno University professor for her social media statements after former first lady Barbara Bush died. Calls to fire a professor at the University of Alabama after comments about Rush Limbaugh's death. Calls to discipline two students because of their social media posts after the killing of George Floyd.

"It goes like this: A tragedy happens. Someone reacts by celebrating that tragedy for whatever reason," said Adam Goldstein, vice president of Strategic Initiatives at FIRE, in an analysis posted on Substack. "Then the social media mob comes to demand this person be fired, expelled, or otherwise punished for their views."

Private employers do have large leeway when it comes to firing people for speech, especially when it violates an employer's code of conduct or other internal policy. The First Amendment protects Americans from government infringement on speech.

But the law surrounding public employees' speech rights are murkier. That pushes the question of an employee's speech rights into an area of the First Amendment called the "Pickering Connick test," a two-part test that allows the courts to balance an employee's free speech rights with that of an employer's interest for a disruption-free workplace.

In the 1983 case Connick v. Myers, the Supreme Court clarified the Pickering Connick test, finding that "government officials" could "enjoy wide latitude" in managing employee speech when employee expression could not "be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community."

This test was recently limited slightly by a 2006 Supreme Court case that found public employees do not have First Amendment protection for speech that was issued as part of their official duties.

Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, was among the public universities taking action against an employee over a social post about Kirk.

"If someone makes a comment that ends up damaging their credibility and ability to do their job, the public institutions can typically take action," said Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at MTSU. "This is somebody who works daily with students as an arbiter of student conduct. ... It will be paramount in that position to have students who are coming to you feel like you have no agendas and have an open mind."

Paulson looked ahead to possible legal wrangling after actions over Kirk posts.

"If this ends up in court, a judge will apply (the Pickering-Connick) test, assessing the former employee’s right to express her disdain for Charlie Kirk, and if determined to be about a public issue, weigh how her right stacks up against the impact on MTSU," he said. "When a court applies this Pickering-Connick test, it considers factors like the individual’s position, responsibilities and the impact the comments have on the institution.

"I can’t venture an opinion about how this dismissal will play out; I can only say that courts have a framework for navigating these cases, which appear to be increasing nationwide."

'Doing the right thing'

For many Republican officials, it's a matter of holding public employees accountable.

In a statement Sept. 15, Rokita's office in Indiana said hundreds of people have submitted information over the weekend, and it is reviewing, verifying and posting reports. By the afternoon of Sept. 15, no instances related to Kirk's death had been added to the dashboard.

"There is nothing remotely inconsistent between that kind of public transparency and the First Amendment," Slayde Settle, a spokesperson for the attorney general's office, said in the statement. "If a government employee would prefer that parents and other Hoosiers not know about their support for the violent assassination of a husband and father of two young children, perhaps they should refrain from expressing that support in public forum."

Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, both Republicans now running for governor of their states, cheered the swift response of schools and universities.

"Thank you Greenville County Schools for doing the right thing," Mace said on social media after a Palmetto State teacher was fired over a post.

Blackburn, who posted in July 2023 that "cancel culture is the enemy of free expression," has highlighted examples and called for discplinary action.

In a statement to The Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network, Blackburn described these actions as necessary. She cited an example of a Secret Service agent put on leave after posting disparaging remarks about Kirk on social media.

“It is the Secret Service’s job to protect public officials from political assassination, and any agent who celebrates a political assassination has violated the oath they swore to uphold," she said. "When educators celebrate a political assassination that occurred on the campus of another university, they are betraying the values of the institutions they represent.

"No parent wants their child taking instruction from someone who applauds the brutal murder of a father, husband, and political leader in cold blood. These individuals violated public trust and should not be anywhere near a badge or a classroom.”

Heath Garrett, a national Republican political strategist based in Atlanta, had a different take.

"For First Amendment advocates, firing anyone for the words they use, short of inciting violence, should give everyone pause," said Garrett, a former chief of staff to the late Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia. "You can understand why they want these people fired in a moment like this.

"You don't fight the cancel culture by embracing the cancel culture," Garrett said. "That's the spirit Charlie Kirk took to every college campus that he ever visited. Charlie Kirk embraced (President Abraham) Lincoln's belief: We are not enemies. We are friends, even when we viscerally disagree with each other.

"Charlie Kirk's example, philosophy and advocacy would be not to fire someone for the words they used."

Indeed, Kirk's reputation was built largely on his defense of free speech.

“Hate speech does not exist legally in America," he said in a social media post in 2024. "There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”

The shirt he was wearing when he died said "FREEDOM."

The USA TODAY Network's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.

Contributing: Andy Humbles, Evan Mealins and Austin Hornbostel, the Tennessean

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: How online reactions to Charlie Kirk's killing test limits of First Amendment

Reporting by Keith Sharon, Angele Latham and Cate Charron, USA TODAY NETWORK / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect