Freedom of speech is a founding principle of the republic. It's one of our most precious rights; the right to say what's on your mind, to climb up on a soapbox in the public square and say, or shout, precisely what you like. There are a few limits: Incitement to violence, for example.
The First Amendment, however, does not shelter people from the consequences of their speech. And now, in these days of the Information Revolution, an expressed opinion can reach a lot of people very quickly. Including, say, one's employers, who may take issue with an expression of opinion. Case in point: The usual run of spittle-flecked, hateful posts by rabid lefties following the assassination of Charlie Kirk are making their hate known - and a whole bunch of them are losing their jobs over it.
That's an unalloyed good thing.
A growing number of individuals are facing professional consequences, from being fired or placed on administrative leave, for public comments they made in the wake of the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.
After the 31-year-old CEO of Turning Point USA was shot and killed during an event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday, a growing list of political leaders, business figures and media outlets across the spectrum condemned the political violence.
But others cited Kirk’s political views as a reason not to mourn his death, which critics argued minimized or excused the violence. At the same time, others used it as an opportunity to highlight the rise in shootings, particularly those claiming the lives of children.
MSNBC political analyst Matthew Dowd was seen as the first of many figures to face consequences for his comments, but the list quickly grew.
Good. My colleagues Bonchie and Bob Hoge have already covered Matthew Dowd's slam-dunking from MSNBC:
Read More: Matthew Dowd Has Been Fired by MSNBC After Grotesque Comments on Charlie Kirk
Fired MSNBC Pundit Doubles Down on Inflammatory Rhetoric in Pathetic Attempt to Explain Himself
Of course, MSNBC being what it is, Dowd may only be unemployed until the network figures things have blown over, but at least for now, he's out of a job. But the list goes far, far beyond just Matthew Dowd and, indeed, past just media figures. A list of employers who have fired people for making hateful remarks about the Kirks, and for celebrating Charlie's murder, just from this one article, includes:
On X, a cottage industry has sprung up, in which the unforgivable remarks of lefties are coming back to haunt them; activists are finding out who they are, where they work, and notifying their employers. Look at a couple of examples:
Good. All of this is good.
Look, I'm as staunch a defender of free speech as you'll find anywhere. These people, yes, have a right to say what they said, a right protected by the First Amendment. Hateful speech is protected, too, after all. But their employers also have the right to defenestrate them if they publicly express opinions and views that the employer finds hateful, and the comments these people are making are hateful indeed. These foul people should be dragged into the daylight, fired, and then roundly mocked for it.
To all of these halfwits who are attacking Charlie and the Kirks, and by extension, all of us, I would only say this:
When worn on the other foot, the shoe pinches. Welcome to Cancel Culture Part Deux; as it turns out, we're better at it than you were.