A better way for companies to manage employees’ comments on the death of Charlie Kirk

MSNBC apologized for the comments and dismissed Dowd almost immediately.

Since then, the list of people who have been dismissed to share their opinions on Kirk’s inheritance have increased exponentially. They include Karen Attiah, columnist at the Washington Post; Charlie Rock, communications director for the Carolina Panthers football team and employees of the Anonymous Nasdaq company, the Broad Institute research center and the law firm Perkins Cole. The other companies that have suspended or rejected employees for social media or public comments include American Airlines, United, Delta, Walmart and Office Depot. Meanwhile, the number of those reported by online conservative activists organized for doing what they considered inappropriate comments would have reached thousands of people.

Most of the Kirk’s death statements that landed people in difficulty are declarations pointed at the extreme positions of the late activist on firearms control, race and Dei, or abortion, feminism and LGBTQ +problems. Some have gone further, celebrating the murder of Kirk or suggesting that he brought him to himself. But many of these comments explicitly condemn violence and murder, while contesting Kirk’s well -documented discussion points. These cases have raised concerns concerning the overly zealous responses of companies and have left many uncertain companies of how to proceed.

This is a complicated question: Kirk himself was a criticism of “canceling culture” which complained with passion for the importance of freedom of expression. But as a guest animator of the Kirk podcast this week, Vice-President JD Vance suggested that companies should act against their employees for expressed opinions on Kirk’s death: “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them-and, hell, call their employer.” Meanwhile, many progressives who applauded the dismissal of participants in the January 6 rally who turned into riots are dismayed by the dismissals of Kirk criticisms now.

Everything to say that, for business leaders, the tragedy of what seems to be political violence (although the motivation of the suspect and the political leaning remain the subject of speculation) have transformed into a legal and reputation quagmire, raising complicated questions on the path of employers’ progress in the discipline of employees at a time when companies are also supposed to support a healthy debate and transparency.

Some employers and employees remain vague on the situation of red lines and what happens when they are crossed, explains Jonathan Segal, lawyer and partner of Duane Morris in New York specializing in employment law.

But it is not for a lack of experience. In the past two years only, ideological divisions have been exposed by the crisis of Israel-Gaza, the murder of the CEO of Unitedhealthcare, Brian Thompson, and other violence and murders with politically motivated motivation in the United States

The most important thing to do for businesses is to set up a clear policy policy, explains Alison Taylor, a clinical professor in the business and company program at the Nyu Stern School of Business, who says she looks with horror the comments of Kirk and the layoffs take place.

“It should be clear for anyone working in your business what you can and cannot say online and what is your code of driving,” says Taylor. (And politics should be easy to find, not something that is deeply hidden in the online manual of a business.) “If you dismiss people on the basis of these comments and you have not published these tips, I don’t think you can get out of it.”

The limits of freedom of expression at work

One of the reasons why employers must be proactive about social media policies is that employees remain confused with regard to their protections. “Employees are still asking for their rights to the first amendment,” explains Segal, “but in general, there is no rights of freedom of expression in a workplace.” In the United States, most workers in the private sector are employees of will and private employers have the right to dismiss persons on the rules established by the company’s code of conduct, he explains. Only those who work for the government have constitutional protections linked to speech under federal laws or states, and even they are confronted with certain limits.

In most private workplaces, discourse is only protected if there is a legal principle that would otherwise protect employees from remuneration, said Segal. (An example is a comment as a denunciator on the driving of an employer.) This does not seem to be the case with the statements that people make about Kirk, he added.

Segal advises employers who weigh their options following a disputed explosion of employees to execute a series of questions to determine a course of action. The remark, in front, encourages violence or hatred? If this is the case, the employer may risk not putting an end to this person to dismiss them, because of the message that a company’s response sends to other employees and to the public, explains Segal.

It is also worth examining WHO made the comment, said Segal. If it is a manner or a person more authority, they can be held to more rigorous standards, since they are more likely considered as representatives of the company and that employees report to them. The place of potentially odious comment is another relevant factor, explains Segal. Certain social media platforms, such as LinkedIn, bind a person more clearly to their workplace and are badly thinking about the employer.

But the nuances also come into play, especially when the declaration is made outside of work or in personal capacity of the employee. “Even if employees have no speech rights in themselves,” he says, “how far do you want to go as a culture by urging people for the statements they make outside?”

The importance of remaining coherent

This is the broader question which, according to Taylor, has become “incredibly difficult” in recent years. “A company can have wide and coherent principles that would apply, say, expressing the speech of online racist hatred, and also apply to the celebration of murder,” she says, “and I can understand that these two things should not be authorized, but the problem in which we really do not have to approach.”

Taylor, who also works as a consultant in large global companies, reports that a company with which she works previously encouraged employee activism and has taken good positions on Russia and Ukraine, as well as domestic movements such as Black Lives Matter. Now, some companies that were previously on a member regret it, she says. Worse, some have switched to the opposite extreme, taking draconian stands on employee communications.

“No matter what you think of Charlie Kirk, Israel or Dei,” says Taylor, “it’s a terrible idea to look like you are in the breeze according to who is in power. It was a terrible idea in 2020 and it is always a terrible idea in 2025.”

Other business leaders who have refrained from changing positions have become silent, “afraid of withdrawing their neck for the moment on this issue,” said Taylor. “Thus, the general impression ends up being a little unbalanced.”

The main thing: “It’s a perfect moment to set up principles and have a discussion at the organization’s scale.”

Here is what other leaders should keep in mind:

Create directives, not difficult rules. To avoid the gray areas of the police from political comments outside the work, companies can create policies that simply ask employees to take a break before publishing in place, explains Segal. He suggested: “What you may say may be considered speaking for the company; please think twice before engaging in political media in a political nature.” Employees must also be reminded that the publication of a positive message on a political or controversial figure can also suggest that you approve the opinions of these people.

Never be part. Employers should be apolitical in terms of application of the rules, explains Segal. “If an employer will condemn and potentially put an end to an employee to celebrate the murder or try the murder of someone, he must do it, whether the person is on the left or right,” he said. “This may not always go to legality, but it will always go to cultural credibility.”

Consider warnings or suspensions before the endings: Many dismissals this week on Charlie Kirk would have taken place quickly, without surveys or even conversations. But before ending someone, an employer should consider taking less drastic measures while sorting the problems, says Taylor. “It’s a bit like sexual harassment,” she says. “As soon as there is an allegation and you say that there is no tolerance, you have a very frank instrument – for a very complicated subject.”