������ýapp�ٷ�

“Shoot, if they go for him again, I hope they get him.”

No, that’s not a tweet about the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump.

They’re the words of Ardith McPherson, a Texas police department clerk who made the remark more than 40 years ago after a failed assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. A coworker reported the comment, and McPherson was promptly fired.

McPherson was vindicated though, when the Supreme Court  the firing violated her First Amendment right to express her personal political views. Her story could not be more relevant today, as the list of Americans losing their jobs for comments about the July 13 tragedy grows.

The violence at Trump’s rally near Butler, Pennsylvania, was deeply unsettling, rightly evoking widespread outrage and condemnation. It was an affront to everything American democracy stands for — including our national commitment to resolve our differences peacefully through debate and dialogue. That’s why, in these moments, it’s more important than ever to uphold the values that define our free society, including freedom of speech. That’s especially true when the temptation to punish people for offensive or disturbing statements can feel overwhelming, urgent, and even righteous.

In McPherson’s case, the Supreme Court acknowledged government employers, like any employer, have an interest in running an efficient workplace. But the Court  that interest is not absolute, and public employers can't punish non-disruptive personal speech just because they don't like its message or content. 

To turn the temperature down after the shocking violence in Pennsylvania, the nation needs to rally behind our culture of free speech, where words — not weapons — remain our best hope to preserve our democracy.

The upshot is that the First Amendment affords significant protection to public employees when, like McPherson, they speak in their personal capacity on matters of public concern. “The inappropriate or controversial character of a statement,” Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote for the Court, “is irrelevant.”

But concerns over impropriety and controversy — rather than safety or workplace disruption — are fueling knee-jerk employee punishments for comments about the attempt on Trump’s life.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources  into an employee last week for his Facebook post (“Too bad they weren’t a better shot”), saying the comment was “reprehensible and inconsistent” with its “views and values.” Firings, suspensions, investigations, and pressured resignations have followed similar remarks by a  in South Dakota,    from Mississippi to Manhattan, and  and  in Pennsylvania and Texas.

These disciplinary responses raise serious constitutional concerns. The First Amendment doesn’t protect true threats or incitement, but none of these comments fall in either legal category — they aren’t serious expressions of intent to physically harm a specific individual, nor are they intended to and likely to cause imminent violence. 

Private-sector employees — including a Home Depot  in New York, a Midwest , and a  in North Carolina — lost their jobs for similar comments. Values of “respect and caring” and a policy against “amplify[ing] violence,” for example, were the  given by a New York City hospital that fired a nurse for posting: “Like bro, work on your skills.” 

So to Speak Podcast Transcript: Political violence and speech

Interviews

On today's show we explore political violence: its history, its causes, and its relationship with free speech.

Read More

Firing private-sector employees doesn’t violate the First Amendment, but it threatens a healthy culture of expression. The government isn’t the only powerful societal force that can deter people from speaking their minds. Lack of broad consensus on the value of free expression and a desire to see it reflected in our lives and institutions can, too.

Tolerating unpopular opinions and dark humor, getting comfortable with uncomfortable conversations, and recognizing the distinction between speech and violence are signs of a healthy free speech culture. So is a society that gives a modicum of grace and forgiveness when people say something offensive in tense moments. That’s why firing someone for their opinions shouldn’t be private employers' first impulse.

Notably, most punishments happened shortly after popular social media account  amplified the posts alongside employer contact information. 

It’s one thing for a private employer to make a considered decision to fire an employee due to workplace disruption or an intolerable difference in values. It’s another for social media mobs to dictate the limits of political speech. When all it takes is an online influencer’s post to put an employee out of a job for off-the-clock political speech, Americans will self-censor for fear that even a flippant remark might cost them their livelihoods. And every time companies succumb to an online outcry, they invite an avalanche of similar demands.

Violence is the antithesis of free speech, which replaced violence as a means of settling our differences. 

Rather than caving to the mob, private employers should take a page from the First Amendment standard , with a heavy presumption against firing employees for expressing their opinions or telling jokes outside of work. 

The phenomenon of pressuring employers to fire staff for controversial views didn’t begin this month. Cancel culture hasn’t been confined to one side of the political spectrum, and those who’ve condemned it in the past should stay principled when the shoe is on the other foot. 

Tit-for-tat canceling shrinks the boundaries of acceptable opinion, leaving more and more speech a fireable offense. Consider what happened in the wake of Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, when people were fired for  a satirical Onion article or  a school district to “publicly recognize the Palestinian community.” In recent years, folks have lost jobs for  school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic,  the concept of structural racism, and other takes on hot-button political issues. 

Genuine calls for political violence deserve condemnation. Violence is the antithesis of free speech, which replaced violence as a means of settling our differences. But fueling cancel culture by destroying people’s livelihoods over lawful speech is no way to de-escalate the political moment.  

We need to resolve our disagreements as much as possible through dialogue — not workplace discipline. Canceling people for thoughtcrimes doesn’t change anyone’s mind. It only leaves America more polarized, more resentful, and maybe even more susceptible to violence. It will also leave us without critical information: what other people actually think.

To turn the temperature down after the shocking violence in Pennsylvania, the nation needs to rally behind our culture of free speech, where words — not weapons — remain our best hope to preserve our democracy.