© Unknown'Free speech cage'
In the aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk, many folks who dared to express views of him and his work outside the mainstream
lost their jobs, professional standing and State Department visas as they were fired or otherwise disciplined by employers or bureaucrats who concluded that anti-Kirk views could harm the employers' businesses or were inconsistent with institutional values.
All discipline based on speech needs to be scrutinized strictly. Yet, even in states with strong public accommodations laws — laws that generally protect free speech in the workplace and in public places — at will employees can generally be disciplined for expressive activities that their bosses reasonably fear may impair the product or services they were hired to produce or deliver, or undermine the values or message of the institution with which they are affiliated.
Thus, reasonable fears of the loss of business or charitable donations due to the anti-Kirk public sentiments may lawfully result in silencing or firing those employees.
All this is so because the
First Amendment restrains only the government. While it reads
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," today the amendment means that
no government may evaluate the content of speech and punish what it doesn't want to hear.So, essentially, private entities that are not subject to the Bill of Rights may punish speech harmful to their product or values. Private entities that receive federal funds — like universities — are subject to the Bill of Rights, and though some did punish speech critical of Kirk's legacy or indifferent to his demise,
those punishments were all unlawful. But none of this punishment-for-speech mania can rise to a criminal level. Until now.
Comment: Too soft by half for the cretin.