The killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has ignited intense online political debate amid countless social media posts; some mourning the loss of the commentator and condemning gun violence, others justifying, minimizing or making light of Kirk's death.
Some employers have punished the latter, with employees resigning, being fired or placed on leave for posts made on their personal pages regarding Kirk's slaying.
In Cleveland, Mayor Justin Bibb announced Tuesday he had placed Fire Chief Anthony Luke on paid administrative leave for reposting a cartoon that depicted kneeling elephants in suits bowing to an assault rifle on top of a podium with the text, "Bring out the next sacrifice!!" The post also contained a quote from Kirk defending gun rights.
Bibb said the post "romanticized" gun violence, though the cartoon's creator, Benjamin Slyngstad, appeared to condemn it.
"Charlie Kirk once said, 'I think it's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment' and while that is an asinine stance to take, he is not unique in that thinking," Slyngstad wrote. "It might as well be the party line for conservatives."
Are employers legally allowed to fire you for making posts on your personal media?
The short answer is yes, but legal experts say they're concerned about the future implications for free speech, especially with mounting pressure from politicians meddling in those employment discussions.
"We've seen a lot of government actors calling for private employees to be fired, and I think that that's a serious First Amendment issue," said Andy Geronimo, the director of the First Amendment Clinic at Case Western Reserve University's School of Law.
Geronimo points to National Rifle Association v. Vullo, a 2024 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot indirectly limit free speech by threatening sanctions against an employer.
Earlier this week, Vice President J.D. Vance called on Americans to report those "celebrating" Kirk's death.
"Call them out, and hell, call their employer," Vance said.
Geronimo said if Vance or any government official were to pressure any particular employer, the affected employee would likely have a case against the politician.
Otherwise, it's fair game, absent of state law. In California, for example, you cannot be fired or discriminated against for your political activities or beliefs. Ohio has no such laws.
Are First Amendment protections different for public officials?
For government employees like Cleveland's fire chief, however, the rules are a little different, if not ambiguous.
"Generally, you don't forfeit your First Amendment rights to speak as a private citizen when you take government employment, but when you're speaking in the course of your job duties especially, or when your speech will impact the efficient workings of your office, then courts will generally say you're not speaking as a private citizen there," Geronimo said.
Geronimo said those First Amendment protections can be unclear, especially given the "spectrum" of government work.
"The more public facing and the more policy creating you are on the spectrum, the more likely you're going to be seen as speaking for the office itself," Geronimo said.
Though Luke does not have legislative duties, he could be held to that "higher standard" because his job requires a lot of public interaction — same for other law enforcement and public safety officials, or even teachers.
"It could be that even private statements on matters of public concern could be seen as affecting their job duties," Geronimo said. "For example ... if [a law enforcement official] says that all minorities are criminals and they're all violent and they all deserve to go to jail, what the cases would say is that affects their position because people have a legitimate fear that they won't be policed fairly and constitutionally."
Bibb said as much in Tuesday's statement. He affirmed he believed in free speech, “but with rights come responsibilities, especially for those who hold positions of public trust and leadership."
In contrast, employees in roles like accounting or sanitation may experience less scrutiny. Geronimo said it would be harder to prove how political opinions affect their job duties.
"What you can't do is fire somebody because you don't like their viewpoint or their speech, and you just disagree with it," Geronimo said. "But you can fire somebody if they're disrupting your ability to provide government services, including, in some ways, making the department look bad."
Luke is not the only public official whose job has been impacted by social media posts. Prior to the chief's posts, two other Cleveland first responders were placed under investigation for posts about Kirk's death.
Elected officials are more difficult to remove from office than government employees, generally requiring impeachment processes or recall elections. But some in Northeast Ohio have resigned for similar posts after pressure from conservatives.
In Fairview Park, Council President Michael Kilbane resigned after posting on the day of Kirk’s death “A lot of good people died today. He wasn’t one of them.”
In Munroe Falls, Council Vice President John Impellizzeri resigned after writing a social media post following Kirk’s death which read, in part, “the world is a better place now that he’s gone.”
Impellizzeri is also under investigation from his employer, University Hospitals.
