Should the online Kirk haters be fired?
Some of the Kirk haters jumping for joy — including teachers, airline pilots, first responders — were fired from their jobs as a result of their comments.
I am in a quandary, on the horns of a dilemma, trapped between the liquid walls of emotion, and the rough rocks of reason.
I was not a fan of Charlie Kirk’s. I was barely aware of his existence. I have learned he was enormous, and influential, on the right side of the political spectrum, especially with the young.
Immediately after his death, I went on Facebook and there saw some people celebrating his death. Gleeful, really.
I called them low lifes and got into a debate with some of them. I soon regretted calling them low lifes.
They are scumbags.
A man had been murdered in cold blood, creating a young widow, and making fatherless an infant and a toddler.
After that, reports surfaced that other low lifes had celebrated the murder, as had happened after the accused back-shooting killer Luigi Mangione was arrested.
Some of the Kirk haters jumping for joy — including teachers, airline pilots, first responders — were fired from their jobs as a result of their comments.
Emotionally, I threw up a big high five. They are anti-democratic, callous scumbags. Yes!
Intellectually, and politically, I dropped a penalty flag. No. They should not be fired as long as they were on personal, not business, accounts.
Their disgusting comments are protected by the First Amendment.
Just like Charlie Kirk’s disgusting comments. Some were, most weren’t.
The First Amendment could not protect Kirk from a killer.
Nor can the First Amendment protect scumbags from their employers, but maybe public opinion can.
They should not be fired for voicing unpopular, even ugly, opinions. That is my rational point of view, grudgingly written from how I think, but not how I feel.
Feelings are important, as are emotions, but emotions are not domesticated, they range from love to hate, and sometimes neither is justified. The seven deadly sins all flow from emotion.
Yes, yes, yes, I know Kirk said some ugly things that sounded hateful to many. To be charitable, some sounded racist. Some sounded anti-Semitic.
So what?
They were just words.
The Constitution protects you and me against intrusions by the government. It does not protect us against hurt feelings. Another foundation document, the Declaration of Independence, promises “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Key word — pursuit. Happiness is not promised, just the freedom to pursue it.
Kirk was exercising his right to offend.
The correct response can be verbal. It can be written. It can’t be from the barrel of a Mauser bolt-action rifle, believed used to kill Kirk.
Nor from the barrel of a pump-action Remington Model 760 Gamemaster .30.06 caliber rifle, used to kill Dr. Martin Luther King.
Can you imagine some of the revolting comments that might have been made, had we had social media then?
I can, from scumbags.
I imagine my feelings, as a journalist, tie me closer to the First Amendment than the average person, and not all journalists will agree with me. Especially the younger ones.
1A can cause hurt feelings, without doubt. And the internet can be as refreshing as a sewer.
That’s my opinion. You are free to disagree. You are free to call me names.
You are not free to shoot me.
