Billy Binion published an article on Reason on Wednesday about this, and I think it’s basically correct. Excerpt, although there’s more at the link:
Whatever you think of the former president, cheering his assassination attempt is actually wrong. Weaponize millions of followers, turn a random woman into a national pariah, have a mob attack her, and leave her unable to support herself—and possibly her family—because of what she posts on social media A tasteless comment, which is also wrong. Both of these things are true at the same time.
Cancel culture comes in different forms. But this is arguably the purest. We’re not talking about someone who has considerable influence on society, whether in Hollywood or on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and we’re not even talking about a public school teacher who said this to a classroom full of students. We’re talking about a woman who works at a big box retail store and her ability to pay for housing and food may now hang in the balance because of something nasty she said on the internet.
Ironically, the man leading this mob is the same man who has rightly condemned mob justice many times over the past few years.
Binion’s article is fundamentally about what is right and wrong about this situation. But if you’re interested in whether it’s legal for a private employer to fire employees for such comments, check out this article that explores state and local laws on the topic. Here’s another map summarizing this (from this article); the dark gray states are the ones where such dismissals are most likely to be illegal:
For a matter related to whether government Employers May Fire Workers as They Say After President’s Assassination: ‘If They Go After Him Again, I Hope They Get Him,’ See rankin v. macpherson (1987); The court held that firing an employee for such speech violated the First Amendment.
to confirm, Rankin Not entirely to the point: for one thing, it concerns speech in office, whereas speech out of office might be more protected. On the other hand, the speech was only to a friend, and the court noted that “there was no danger that McPherson would discredit the office by making a public statement,” although this could simply be because McPherson was an employee of a law firm law enforcement OFFICE — It’s unclear whether concerns about smearing the office apply to people like firefighters. But whatever the legal analysis, Binion’s moral analysis seems to me to be correct.
