Unfortunately, there are some very stupid and sick people in the world who think mocking someone's tragic misfortune or death is an appropriate thing to do.
We've certainly seen quite a bit of that on social media in the aftermath of the assassination of conservative leader Charlie Kirk, which happened on Wednesday during a Turning Point USA event held outdoors at Utah Valley University.
Leftist safe space Bluesky, for instance, had to issue a formal warning to its easily triggered woketivists, noting that "Glorifying violence or harm violates Bluesky’s Community Guidelines. We review reports and take action on content that celebrates harm against anyone. Violence has no place in healthy public discourse."
READ MORE: Wait, What? Bluesky Has to Warn Users Not to Celebrate Charlie Kirk's Murder
On Instagram, however, one Carolina Panthers employee has reportedly officially found out after allegedly posting a message celebrating Kirk's murder and ridiculing his supporters:
The Carolina Panthers have fired an employee in the team’s communications department due to an insensitive social media post about the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in Utah, a source familiar with the team’s decision said Thursday.
Charlie Rock, a football communications coordinator for the Panthers, posted Wednesday, a few hours after Kirk was shot and killed while speaking to a crowd on a college campus in Utah: “Why are yall sad? Your man said it was worth it ...” and included a photo of Kirk. Rock also included a reference to the Wu-Tang Clan song “Protect Ya Neck” in the post.
According to reports, Kirk was shot in the neck.
The statement the Panthers organization posted on X read as follows:
Rock's Instagram page was not accessible as of this writing, meaning it has either been temporarily taken down or permanently deleted:
Because this is also happening to others who have taken to the Internet to sickeningly express their depraved glee over the murder of a father and husband, I've seen scattered discussions about how, if these people were supposedly posting these messages on their own time, then it should be okay.
While it's unclear whether Charlie Rock did this in his off time, I don't think the above argument really holds water. And before I get started explaining why, I want to make clear that this is not a legal opinion but my personal opinion.
If employers check someone's social media accounts when deciding on an applicant's possible employment, and we all know that happens, then they are certainly going to check them if someone brings it to their attention that the employee is allegedly saying or posting something that potentially reflects negatively on the organization, whether that person is an official representative of the business or not.
Further, if the above screenshots are accurate, Charlie Rock had his employment information listed on one of his social media pages (presumably it was LinkedIn), and even if he didn't, it wouldn't be hard to figure out in the era of online sleuthing/detective work. Even people who are super careful with what they post on social media can sometimes get careless and unwittingly leave a trail of clues.
"But isn't this cancel culture?" one might ask, and sure, I suppose a convincing argument could be made on that front, but that someone won't be me. Because I've already written my opinion on the topic in response to leftist "influencers" who found themselves out of a job after going on TikTok and despicably insinuating that the children who died in the Texas floods back in July deserved it because they lived in a red state, and their parents were white and allegedly voted for Donald Trump.
SEE ALSO: When 'Cancel Culture' Is Understandable
As I said at the time, the issue at hand was not about being "canceled" over mere political disagreements, which IMO is wrong, but over something far more troubling and which should be universally condemned and called out whenever it happens.
As for Charlie Rock, going forward, he could just delete all information related to his (future) employer, whoever that may be, when he wants to post something of a vile nature, but if the profiles were public, he'd risk being exposed again. He could also set his profiles to private, which is certainly an option.
But the better course of action for Mr. Rock, in my view, would be to take the time he now has on his hands to reflect on some of the things he's allegedly said and posted, and learn how to be a better person. Because choosing depravity in the face of unspeakable, horrific acts is simply not the way.