Is there a master list?

[BULLDOG]

Wow, only a month and now those "glad he's dead and wish others were dead" posts are being whitewashed as "less than praiseworthy"

Are glad he's dead remarks illegal?

 

[BULLDOG]

Doubtful they all fit under the same vague biased broad brush you would paint them with.

"All recent" like have a variety of details and factors which would fit them into assorted categories.

Better yet, how about you present some actual, and factual cases/examples. (And all relevant details and sources)

Don't try to pretend you don't know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[DonGlock26]

So many being fired or otherwise punished for making remarks that portray Charlie Kirk as less than praise worthy. According to multiple media reports, pilots, teachers, professors, and even federal employees have been suspended, fired, or placed under investigation after making remarks about Kirks death. Obviously he was a member of some officially protected class that I am unaware of, for our government to suspend our free speech rights to punish all who mention Kirk in less than praiseworthy terms. Does anybody know where I might find some government decisions about this class, such as requirements to be included, or specific protections provided? Perhaps there is a master list of class members protected by our government. Otherwise the flurry of recent punishments have been nothing more than an unconstitutional witch hunt driven by governmental extremists.

How Firings After Charlie Kirk’s Killing Are Testing Boundaries of Free Speech in US

Pilots, teachers, professors, and even federal employees have been suspended, fired, or placed under investigation after making remarks about Kirk’s killing on social media, US News, Times Now

www.timesnownews.com

I thought leftists loved cancel culture?

 

[BULLDOG]

For the hundredth time. They all used their freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not protect them from freedom of consequences.

it protects them from retribution by the government for their speech. Threatening loss of funds is retribution.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

it protects them from retribution by the government for their speech. Threatening loss of funds is retribution.

Pure feelings. Sorry.

 

[BULLDOG]

That only provides protection from the Government. Other than that, you can sue, but had better have a good lawyer and deep pockets, for right or wrong, and hope for the best justice money can buy. Cynical, eh? Oh, and for the record, by best justice money can buy, I wasn't referring to Justice Thomas, this time.

The government threatened to withhold funds to universities until those who disliked Kirk were fired. That is an unconstitutional breech of the 1st. amendment.

 

[BULLDOG]

This list?

View attachment 1173708
View attachment 1173709

Do our laws protect that list from someone saying something bad about them?

 

[IDIOCRACY]

So many being fired or otherwise punished for making remarks that portray Charlie Kirk as less than praise worthy. According to multiple media reports, pilots, teachers, professors, and even federal employees have been suspended, fired, or placed under investigation after making remarks about Kirks death. Obviously he was a member of some officially protected class that I am unaware of, for our government to suspend our free speech rights to punish all who mention Kirk in less than praiseworthy terms. Does anybody know where I might find some government decisions about this class, such as requirements to be included, or specific protections provided? Perhaps there is a master list of class members protected by our government. Otherwise the flurry of recent punishments have been nothing more than an unconstitutional witch hunt driven by governmental extremists.

How Firings After Charlie Kirk’s Killing Are Testing Boundaries of Free Speech in US

Pilots, teachers, professors, and even federal employees have been suspended, fired, or placed under investigation after making remarks about Kirk’s killing on social media, US News, Times Now

www.timesnownews.com

Your first sentence is a lie.....THUS.....why would a normal person continue reading?

I'd suggest to see how mind-fucked the messenger is, but we already know that.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Tea Party movement, which emerged in response to President Obama’s policies, significantly influenced the Republican Party's shift to the right and laid the groundwork for the rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. Both movements share a focus on anti-establishment sentiments and conservative populism, although MAGA has expanded on the Tea Party's themes.

Teabaggers = MAGA = trump cult. Same group same goals, same stupid childish behavior. Same crazy, different names.

 

[BULLDOG]

When public school teachers, professors, or federal employees make hateful, celebratory, or mocking remarks about someone’s death — especially a prominent public figure like Charlie Kirk — they’re not just “exercising free speech.” They’re betraying the trust placed in them by the public they serve.

There’s a crucial difference between freedom of speech and freedom from consequences. Yes, every American has a First Amendment right to express their opinion. But public employees — especially those paid with taxpayer dollars — also have a higher standard of conduct because they represent institutions that must remain neutral, professional, and trustworthy.

Here’s why these firings were justified:

Teachers, professors, and government workers are representatives of the state. Their words and actions reflect directly on the institutions they serve. When they use their public platform or public identity to celebrate someone’s death or demean others based on ideology, they erode trust in the very institutions they’re supposed to uphold.

Public employment isn’t just a job — it’s a public service. With that comes responsibility. If a teacher mocks the death of a student, a law enforcement officer, or a political figure, parents lose faith in the classroom, students feel unsafe, and the community questions whether the institution is fair and impartial. The same goes for professors shaping young minds and federal workers enforcing laws: professional standards don’t stop when the bell rings or the office closes.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that while public employees do have free speech rights, those rights are not absolute. Under decisions like Pickering v. Board of Education, speech that disrupts the functioning of the workplace, undermines relationships, or damages public confidence can be grounds for discipline — even termination.

If a school board or agency can show that hateful comments about Kirk caused disruption, loss of public trust, or violated codes of conduct, firing is not only permissible — it’s necessary.

This isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with Charlie Kirk. It’s about the fundamental principle that government workers cannot use their position — or the credibility that comes with it — to launch hateful tirades without consequence. The same standard would apply if the comments targeted someone on the political left. It’s not a partisan issue; it’s a professionalism issue.

The First Amendment protects citizens from government censorship — it doesn’t guarantee them a government paycheck. If public employees want to make inflammatory statements as private citizens, they can. But if those statements harm the integrity or mission of their workplace, their employer has the right — and the duty — to act.

Public service demands higher standards. When teachers, professors, or federal employees cross the line from debate into cruelty — especially when celebrating someone’s death — they undermine the very trust their institutions depend on. Free speech is a cherished right, but accountability is the price we pay for holding positions of public trust.

Got it. You ignore the 1st at will.

 

[Papageorgio]

Got it. You ignore the 1st at will.

I’m not ignoring the First Amendment at all — I’m actually applying it correctly. The First Amendment protects us from government censorship, not from consequences when our speech crosses certain lines.

Public employees — especially teachers, professors, and federal workers — absolutely have the right to speak as citizens. But the Supreme Court has long held that if that speech undermines their ability to do their job, damages public trust, or disrupts the mission of their institution, their employer has the right to act.

It’s not about silencing opinions — it’s about accountability when someone in a position of public trust uses that platform irresponsibly. Rights come with responsibilities, and that’s part of living in a free society.

 

[BULLDOG]

Your first sentence is a lie.....THUS.....why would a normal person continue reading?

I'd suggest to see how mind-fucked the messenger is, but we already know that.

Please point out the lie " fired or otherwise punished for making remarks that portray Charlie Kirk as less than praise worthy. "

I’m not ignoring the First Amendment at all — I’m actually applying it correctly. The First Amendment protects us from government censorship, not from consequences when our speech crosses certain lines.

Public employees — especially teachers, professors, and federal workers — absolutely have the right to speak as citizens. But the Supreme Court has long held that if that speech undermines their ability to do their job, damages public trust, or disrupts the mission of their institution, their employer has the right to act.

It’s not about silencing opinions — it’s about accountability when someone in a position of public trust uses that platform irresponsibly. Rights come with responsibilities, and that’s part of living in a free society.

When the White House threatens to withhold congressionally approved funds until their enemies are fired, it is about silencing opinions.

 

[MarathonMike]

Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy – particularly when it comes to free speech.

Neep Neep Clayton bot responding Grbl Grbl Clayton bot responding....

 

[Papageorgio]

Please point out the lie " fired or otherwise punished for making remarks that portray Charlie Kirk as less than praise worthy. "

When the White House threatens to withhold congressionally approved funds until their enemies are fired, it is about silencing opinions.

I can’t read the link but if Congress is withholding funds and what and where are funds being threatened because that crosses a line.

However, a school or college or federal entity firing an employee is within the rights of the school, college or federal department but if a school, college or federal department is denied funds over a specific person being retained, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Now there is a bill going through Congress that threatens to defund entities employing people “who condone and celebrate political violence and domestic terrorism.”

I think that would be unconstitutional.

But as it stands now I know of no funding being withheld and those that were fired just faced the consequences of saying stupid things.

 

[White 6]

The government threatened to withhold funds to universities until those who disliked Kirk were fired. That is an unconstitutional breech of the 1st. amendment.

It should be, but will have to be decided in the Supreme Court for it to stick.

 

[kyzr]

Are glad he's dead remarks illegal?

In a civilized society any promotion or encouragement of violence needs to be discouraged/punished.

 

[BULLDOG]

In a civilized society any promotion or encouragement of violence needs to be discouraged/punished.

And the cult believes Charlie Kirk's death is a good place to start the punishments. Aren't we supposed to pass some sort of new law before we make that change?

 

[Grumblenuts]

In a civilized society any promotion or encouragement of violence needs to be discouraged/punished.

Charlie promoted and encouraged free speech.

A Tribute to Charlie Kirk and the First Amendment - Mike Dunleavy

Fellow Alaskans, Throughout the history of the United States there have been moments of national loss that remind us of the values that bind us together as Americans. Today, I write this as not only your governor, but as a citizen of our great country who is mourning the passing of Charlie Kirk...

gov.alaska.gov

Then there's the far right and the other Charlie.

Political Violence Is Abhorrent. Charlie Kirk Didn’t Think So.

The murder of Charlie Kirk was a moral travesty. We can recognize that without ignoring that he repeatedly fanned the flames of political violence himself.

jacobin.com

 

[Mack The Finger]

According to multiple media reports, pilots, teachers, professors, and even federal employees have been suspended, fired, or placed under investigation after making remarks about Kirks death.

The above post is a perfect example of how the satanic MSM spins things.

Starting with According to multiple media reports the author takes no responsibility for what he / she / it / is posting. And is quoting other people that support his agenda.

These people : have been suspended, fired, or placed under investigation after making remarks are not being fired for thier Charlie post but what they say in them; in the sense of how it reflects on the companies values.

They were fired for saying hateful, beyond the pale things about Charlie. There is a difference in saying I am glad he is gone vrs I hate the 4 letter word racist white supremacist.

As far as free speech is concern...it is another thing LIBs like to twist. Say The Philadelphia Eagles fired a coach because he said "I hate Charlie the nazi and I hope he is roasting in hell that 4 letter word." I am certain the coach has a contract and somewhere in the fine print it says you can't say things like that since you are a representative of our TEAM.

Him being fired...has nothing to do with free speech since the GOV played no part in it. The proper term (according to what I have read) is freedom of expression.

But since the article is for Stage 4 TDS suffers and scratches thier hate...they do not question anything in it.

 

[Mack The Finger]

The above post is a perfect example of how the satanic MSM spins things.

Starting with According to multiple media reports the author takes no responsibility for what he / she / it / is posting. And is quoting other people that support his agenda. (no fact checking needed)

These people : have been suspended, fired, or placed under investigation after making remarks are not being fired for thier Charlie post but what they say in them; in the sense of how it reflects on the companies values.

They were fired for saying hateful, beyond the pale things about Charlie. There is a difference in saying I am glad he is gone vrs I hate the 4 letter word racist white supremacist.

As far as free speech is concern...it is another thing LIBs like to twist. Say The Philadelphia Eagles fired a coach because he said "I hate Charlie the nazi and I hope he is roasting in hell that 4 letter word." I am certain the coach has a contract and somewhere in the fine print it says you can't say things like that since you are a representative of our TEAM.

Him being fired...has nothing to do with free speech since the GOV played no part in it. The proper term (according to what I have read) is freedom of expression.

But since the article is for Stage 4 TDS suffers and scratches thier hate...they do not question anything in it.


View attachment 1173817