Free speech under the First Amendment indeed protects the right to express even hateful or violent rhetoric without fear of government censorship or arrest. However, this constitutional protection does not mean that speech is consequence-free. In the United States, unlike in the UK where hate speech laws can lead to arrests, there is no government authority arresting people for hateful speech alone; free speech is robustly protected from government interference. But that does not imply that society, employers, or institutions must tolerate or reward such speech without accountability.
The First Amendment protects individuals from government punishment for their speech, but it does not shield them from social, professional, or political consequences. For example, following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, several individuals, including some public figures and employees, have faced termination or disciplinary actions because their violent or hateful comments were seen as harmful or disruptive to their workplaces or public roles. This is not a violation of the First Amendment but an exercise of accountability within private or public employment rules, often supported by employment laws that allow firing for conduct damaging to an employer’s reputation or working environment.
It is reasonable and necessary to expect accountability from public-facing professionals such as teachers, nurses, doctors, or city councilors. These individuals hold positions of public trust and responsibility, which demands respectful and responsible speech. Allowing them to express hateful or violent rhetoric could undermine trust in their abilities to protect and care for communities, educate children, or serve effectively in public office. Accountability measures such as reprimands, suspension, or job termination for speech that damages public trust are an important aspect of maintaining ethical and functional institutions.
In the U.S. context:
The First Amendment forbids government censorship but does not protect against firing or losing leadership positions for speech that offends or disrupts.
Employment law, especially in at-will states, permits employers to respond to employees’ speech that is harmful to the workplace or public image.
Public employees may have some protections but still can face discipline if their speech interferes with their job performance or the employer’s mission.
Unlike the UK, where laws criminalize certain offensive speech with arrests, U.S. law protects free speech from government criminal penalties except for narrow categories like true threats or incitement to imminent lawless action.
Thus, advocating for consequences such as job loss or reprimands after harmful speech—including violent or hateful remarks after a political assassination—is compatible with free speech and reflects a healthy balance between liberty and accountability. This approach ensures society can uphold free expression without tolerating speech that damages public trust or safety, holding individuals responsible without resorting to government punishment or censorship.
This stance supports free speech without endorsing cancel culture, emphasizing respect and responsibility in public discourse while rejecting government overreach seen in other countries.
While I agree that professions such as nurses and K-12 teachers losing their jobs over certain speech can be a different matter as they’re caretakers of children/patients who rely on a direct bond of trust...professors, though, aren’t in that same role. Their job isn’t to nurture or protect in the same way; it’s to challenge, research, and push students—who are adults—to think critically for themselves.
When we hold professors to the same standard as K-12 teachers or nurses, we collapse that distinction and treat college students like children who need shielding rather than adults who can weigh ideas. That undermines the very purpose of higher education. Professors should be free to express controversial opinions on their own social media accounts without fearing they’ll be run out of academia (mid-semester/contract) for offending sensibilities. It’s about preserving the conditions for free inquiry. If the school decides to not renew the faculty member's contract that's a different story as well.
Who gets to decide what speech is violent or hateful or offensive? Employers? Social media? Plain ole' common decency?
The crux of the issue has never really been holding people accountable for their words, but rather how do we agree, as a society/community/nation, what kind of speech rises to a level that permits some sort of material punishment.
This is why the author spent so much time talking about the need for maturity when dealing with offensive speech, especially with college-age citizens. She argued that the bar has been set too low and needs a higher adjustment. Because rational and mature individuals are not nearly as "harmed" by speech as those less mature or reasonable. To put it frankly, some people just need to grow up.
In this age of eternal fetishization of youthful emotionalism, it's not a bad argument.
I think I’m in the “mourn Charlie but don’t turn it into a crusade.” I absolutely love seeing flags out, signs on cars and homes and billboards honoring Charlie. But I don’t want to “fight back.” I’ll “fight back” by just being more honest and real about what I think. I hear about people getting fired and people purposely exposing peoples’ behavior. And yes, I think it’s worrisome. But as someone who like Charlie…I’m finding it hard to have the energy to worry too much about it.
We all should be able to have a conversation, dialogue kindly, respectfully. Actually listen! Like we are all doing here. And we as a country seem to have forgotten that. Able to know we all are human and forgive. But still hv justice. Easy to see and read something too and jump to conclusions when we don’t know everything that happened/s sometimes. Strive for righteousness, justice, peace, equality, compassion, understanding of each other.
Idw to live in a country where we can’t be free to speak up, out for or against anyone, even and especially the government. We don’t want communism here. We should all want freedom of expression…but there should be guardrails. No should be afraid for their life because of what someone said abt them.
What about when ppl or groups call on others to rise up and sometimes violently? And over and over again? And ppl have followed thru on physically hurting others. Should we be allowed to scold or warn…or how do we prevent injury, death? Wrongful one like this one. Have more security and rules of engagement….
Your article is at best very inconsistent. At worst, it is highly self-righteous and hypocritical. You claim free speech should be allowed even if a person is saying he or she is happy about a murder of a good man took place. But where is my free speech, as an owner of a company, to say to such a despicable person, "You're fired!"
Why should free speech be disallowed behind the church door. What’s even more disturbing is your accusation of idolatry and that Charlie put himself or that any who think he was a good man put him "above reproach." If his murder had happened in the days of the Book of Acts, he would have gotten his name in Scripture along side Stephen. And Charlie would have probably said the same thing, "Forgive them for they know not what they do!" You wrote, "Influencers declaring, 'If your church didn’t mention Charlie Kirk this Sunday, find a new church'” was idolatry and hero worship, is absurd.
In every debate Kirk had, he defended the Lord Jesus Christ and the Christian worldview.
Since when is it idolatry to say all Christians should speak against the murder of Christians because of their love for Christ and their Christian worldview?!
The service I attended on Sunday did not mention Charlie Kirk, not because mentioning him would have been cultic, but because the church I attend is more or less in its own little Christian "tribe" (i.e. - cultic) and disagrees with Evangelicals on various points. If the pastor had mentioned Charlie Kirk, even if it was a prayer for his widow and fatherless children, he could have been excoriated by some in the "tribe."
When it comes to college students, how can you even think that they can fight against what has more or less become Marxist indoctrination centers?! But watch, many more of them will now stand up for what they believe, even if they are insulted by a bully professor and given a failing grade.
The death of Charlie Kirk has revealed to me my own cowardice. I think Trump is doing a great job as president and I have a t-shirt with him raising his hand and the words, "Fight! Fight! Fight!" But I have been too intimidated and cowardly to wear it outside the house for two reasons. 1. Because people like you will call me a cultist or Trump worshiper, and, 2. Because of the "action" of those who have a passionate and unreasonable hatred for Trump might scratch up my car or want to kill me. Trump and conservatives have been called Nazis, fascists, Hitler, deplorable, irredeemable, etc., for years now, and there are people acting on such lies, false accusations, and deceitful propaganda. See Solzhenitsyn in his essay "Live Not By Lies" (2/12/1974) and you will understand exactly where we are today in America. Young people do not know what happened in the past. But us older folks do, and it is distressing to see it repeat itself! Charlie Kirk saw it and he spoke against it!
I would definitely have exercised my right to fire an employee whose heart was filled with such hatred for another human being that he or she was happy about a public murder.
Many of us have heard the cry of the child, "The emperor has no clothes!" Still, the parade must go on. I refuse to be a part of it!
Free speech under the First Amendment indeed protects the right to express even hateful or violent rhetoric without fear of government censorship or arrest. However, this constitutional protection does not mean that speech is consequence-free. In the United States, unlike in the UK where hate speech laws can lead to arrests, there is no government authority arresting people for hateful speech alone; free speech is robustly protected from government interference. But that does not imply that society, employers, or institutions must tolerate or reward such speech without accountability.
The First Amendment protects individuals from government punishment for their speech, but it does not shield them from social, professional, or political consequences. For example, following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, several individuals, including some public figures and employees, have faced termination or disciplinary actions because their violent or hateful comments were seen as harmful or disruptive to their workplaces or public roles. This is not a violation of the First Amendment but an exercise of accountability within private or public employment rules, often supported by employment laws that allow firing for conduct damaging to an employer’s reputation or working environment.
It is reasonable and necessary to expect accountability from public-facing professionals such as teachers, nurses, doctors, or city councilors. These individuals hold positions of public trust and responsibility, which demands respectful and responsible speech. Allowing them to express hateful or violent rhetoric could undermine trust in their abilities to protect and care for communities, educate children, or serve effectively in public office. Accountability measures such as reprimands, suspension, or job termination for speech that damages public trust are an important aspect of maintaining ethical and functional institutions.
In the U.S. context:
The First Amendment forbids government censorship but does not protect against firing or losing leadership positions for speech that offends or disrupts.
Employment law, especially in at-will states, permits employers to respond to employees’ speech that is harmful to the workplace or public image.
Public employees may have some protections but still can face discipline if their speech interferes with their job performance or the employer’s mission.
Unlike the UK, where laws criminalize certain offensive speech with arrests, U.S. law protects free speech from government criminal penalties except for narrow categories like true threats or incitement to imminent lawless action.
Thus, advocating for consequences such as job loss or reprimands after harmful speech—including violent or hateful remarks after a political assassination—is compatible with free speech and reflects a healthy balance between liberty and accountability. This approach ensures society can uphold free expression without tolerating speech that damages public trust or safety, holding individuals responsible without resorting to government punishment or censorship.
This stance supports free speech without endorsing cancel culture, emphasizing respect and responsibility in public discourse while rejecting government overreach seen in other countries.
While I agree that professions such as nurses and K-12 teachers losing their jobs over certain speech can be a different matter as they’re caretakers of children/patients who rely on a direct bond of trust...professors, though, aren’t in that same role. Their job isn’t to nurture or protect in the same way; it’s to challenge, research, and push students—who are adults—to think critically for themselves.
When we hold professors to the same standard as K-12 teachers or nurses, we collapse that distinction and treat college students like children who need shielding rather than adults who can weigh ideas. That undermines the very purpose of higher education. Professors should be free to express controversial opinions on their own social media accounts without fearing they’ll be run out of academia (mid-semester/contract) for offending sensibilities. It’s about preserving the conditions for free inquiry. If the school decides to not renew the faculty member's contract that's a different story as well.
<edit: meant to be a reply to Bronwyn's comment>
Who gets to decide what speech is violent or hateful or offensive? Employers? Social media? Plain ole' common decency?
The crux of the issue has never really been holding people accountable for their words, but rather how do we agree, as a society/community/nation, what kind of speech rises to a level that permits some sort of material punishment.
This is why the author spent so much time talking about the need for maturity when dealing with offensive speech, especially with college-age citizens. She argued that the bar has been set too low and needs a higher adjustment. Because rational and mature individuals are not nearly as "harmed" by speech as those less mature or reasonable. To put it frankly, some people just need to grow up.
In this age of eternal fetishization of youthful emotionalism, it's not a bad argument.
That is the crux. I agree Elliot.
I think I’m in the “mourn Charlie but don’t turn it into a crusade.” I absolutely love seeing flags out, signs on cars and homes and billboards honoring Charlie. But I don’t want to “fight back.” I’ll “fight back” by just being more honest and real about what I think. I hear about people getting fired and people purposely exposing peoples’ behavior. And yes, I think it’s worrisome. But as someone who like Charlie…I’m finding it hard to have the energy to worry too much about it.
Thank you for the good and timely message to all of us.
Thanks for reading!
Def nded!! Can you run for office? Or share this w govt leaders.
Bravo - in the spirit of Nat Hentoff!
Yes!!!!!!
We all should be able to have a conversation, dialogue kindly, respectfully. Actually listen! Like we are all doing here. And we as a country seem to have forgotten that. Able to know we all are human and forgive. But still hv justice. Easy to see and read something too and jump to conclusions when we don’t know everything that happened/s sometimes. Strive for righteousness, justice, peace, equality, compassion, understanding of each other.
Idw to live in a country where we can’t be free to speak up, out for or against anyone, even and especially the government. We don’t want communism here. We should all want freedom of expression…but there should be guardrails. No should be afraid for their life because of what someone said abt them.
Thank you very good article!
What about when ppl or groups call on others to rise up and sometimes violently? And over and over again? And ppl have followed thru on physically hurting others. Should we be allowed to scold or warn…or how do we prevent injury, death? Wrongful one like this one. Have more security and rules of engagement….
Your article is at best very inconsistent. At worst, it is highly self-righteous and hypocritical. You claim free speech should be allowed even if a person is saying he or she is happy about a murder of a good man took place. But where is my free speech, as an owner of a company, to say to such a despicable person, "You're fired!"
Why should free speech be disallowed behind the church door. What’s even more disturbing is your accusation of idolatry and that Charlie put himself or that any who think he was a good man put him "above reproach." If his murder had happened in the days of the Book of Acts, he would have gotten his name in Scripture along side Stephen. And Charlie would have probably said the same thing, "Forgive them for they know not what they do!" You wrote, "Influencers declaring, 'If your church didn’t mention Charlie Kirk this Sunday, find a new church'” was idolatry and hero worship, is absurd.
In every debate Kirk had, he defended the Lord Jesus Christ and the Christian worldview.
Since when is it idolatry to say all Christians should speak against the murder of Christians because of their love for Christ and their Christian worldview?!
The service I attended on Sunday did not mention Charlie Kirk, not because mentioning him would have been cultic, but because the church I attend is more or less in its own little Christian "tribe" (i.e. - cultic) and disagrees with Evangelicals on various points. If the pastor had mentioned Charlie Kirk, even if it was a prayer for his widow and fatherless children, he could have been excoriated by some in the "tribe."
When it comes to college students, how can you even think that they can fight against what has more or less become Marxist indoctrination centers?! But watch, many more of them will now stand up for what they believe, even if they are insulted by a bully professor and given a failing grade.
The death of Charlie Kirk has revealed to me my own cowardice. I think Trump is doing a great job as president and I have a t-shirt with him raising his hand and the words, "Fight! Fight! Fight!" But I have been too intimidated and cowardly to wear it outside the house for two reasons. 1. Because people like you will call me a cultist or Trump worshiper, and, 2. Because of the "action" of those who have a passionate and unreasonable hatred for Trump might scratch up my car or want to kill me. Trump and conservatives have been called Nazis, fascists, Hitler, deplorable, irredeemable, etc., for years now, and there are people acting on such lies, false accusations, and deceitful propaganda. See Solzhenitsyn in his essay "Live Not By Lies" (2/12/1974) and you will understand exactly where we are today in America. Young people do not know what happened in the past. But us older folks do, and it is distressing to see it repeat itself! Charlie Kirk saw it and he spoke against it!
I would definitely have exercised my right to fire an employee whose heart was filled with such hatred for another human being that he or she was happy about a public murder.
Many of us have heard the cry of the child, "The emperor has no clothes!" Still, the parade must go on. I refuse to be a part of it!