After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, private sector employees discover that there is no freedom of expression at work

It is far from the first time that workers have lost their jobs on things they say publicly – including in social networks publications. In the United States, laws can vary from one state to another, but overall, there are very few legal protections for employees who are punished for speeches in and outside the places of private work.

“Most people think they have the right of freedom of expression … But that does not necessarily apply to the workplace,” said Vanessa Matsis-McCready, associate lawyer and vice-president of HR services for PEO. “Most employees in the private sector have no protection for this type of speech at work.”

Add to that the prevalence of social media, which has made more and more common to follow the conduct of employees outside of work and to make people, or to publish information about them online in order to harm them or harass them.

Employers have a lot of latitude

The protections for workers vary from state to state. For example, in New York, if an employee participates in a political demonstration of the weekend, but does not associate with the organization which employs them, his employer cannot dismiss them for this activity on his return to work. But if this same employee is at a business event for a weekend and talks about their political points of view in a way that makes others in danger or the target of discrimination or harassment, then they could face consequences at work, said MATSIS-MCCREADY.

Most of the United States is by default in “at will” employment law – which essentially means that employers can choose to hire and shoot as they see fit, including employee speech.

“The first amendment does not apply to private workplaces to protect the speech of employees,” said Andrew Kragie, a lawyer specializing in employment and work law in Maynard Nexsen. “This actually protects employers to make decisions concerning employees, depending on the speech of employees.”

Kragie said there were “protective pockets” in the United States under various states laws, such as statues that prohibit workers for their political opinions. But the interpretation of the way it gets applied changes, he notes, makes waters troubled.

Steven T. Collis, professor of law at the University of Texas in Austin and director of the faculty at the school first amendment center of the school, also stresses certain state laws who say that employers cannot dismiss their workers for “legal conduct in service”. But there is often an exception for driving considered to be a disruptive for the business or the reputation of an employer, who could be reasons to dismiss someone on public comments or publications on social networks.

“In this scenario, if someone feels like one of their employees has done something that suggests that they glorify or celebrate murder, an employer could still dismiss them with one of these books on books,” said Collis.

For public employees, who can go from teachers and postal employees to elected officials, the process is a little different. Indeed, the first amendment plays a unique role when the government is the employer, explains Collis – and the Supreme Court has judged that if an employee acts privately but speaking in matters of public concern, they are protected.

However, this has not yet prevented the public sector from restricting the speech in the aftermath of Kirk’s death. For example, the leaders of the Pentagon have unveiled a “zero tolerance” policy for all messages or comments of the troops that shed light or celebrate the murder of Kirk.

The policy, announced by the best spokesperson in Pentagon, Sean Parnell on social networks, occurred a few hours after many conservative military influencers and militants began to transmit positions that they considered problems in Parnell and his boss, the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

“It is unacceptable that military staff and civilians in the war department celebrate or make fun of the assassination of an American colleague,” said Parnell on Thursday.

An increase in political debate

The omnipresence of social media facilitates the share of sharing opinions on politics and the main news events when they take place. But the publication on social networks leaves a record, and during the climbing of political polarization, these declarations can be considered to be detrimental to the reputation of an individual or their employer.

“People do not realize when they are on social networks, it is the city’s place,” said Amy Dufrane, CEO of the Institute for Human Resources Certification. “They don’t have a private conversation with the neighbor above the fence. They really broadcast their opinions. ”

Political debates are certainly not limited to social media and are also increasingly going to the workplace.

“The gamification of the way we communicate at the workplace, the releases and the teams, the cat and all these things, they are very similar to the way you could interact on Instagram or other social media, so I think that it feels a little less formal and that someone could be more inclined to take a step and to say:” Oh, I can’t believe it was ” MATSIS-MCCREADY.

Employers are not ready

According to Humans Humans Humans Humans Humans Resource Institute, the divided climate of the United States, many human resources professionals, are not prepared to combat politically loaded discussions in the workplace. But these conversations will occur, so employers must define policies on what is acceptable or unacceptable the place of work, said Dufrane.

“HR must really explore and ensure that they are super clear about their policies and practices and communicate with their employees on their responsibilities as an employee employee,” said Dufrane.

Many employers examine their policies on political speeches and provide training on what the appropriate conduct looks like, inside and outside the organization, she said. And the brutal nature of the kirk murder may have led some of them to react more strongly in the days that followed his death.

“Because of the violent nature of what a political discussion is now, I think there is a real concern of employers that they want to ensure the security of the workplace and that they are very vigilant about everything that could be considered a threat, which is their duty,” said MATSIS-MCCREEDY.

Employees can also be considered as ambassadors of the brand of a company, and their political discourse can dilute this brand and harm its reputation, according to what is said and how it is received. This leads more companies to act on what employees say online, she said.

“Some of the people who had displayed and their positions have become viral, suddenly, the telephone lines of their employers were only non-stop calls,” said Matsis-McCready.

However, experts like collis do not provide a significant change in the way employers monitor the speech of their workers – noting that online activity has been under the spotlight for at least the last 15 years.

“Employers are already and have been for a very long time, checking employees according to what they publish on social networks,” he said.