In this case, that person is Charlie Kirk and those people are public school teachers.
The answer suggests the teachers may have a legitimate constitutional case.
Answer:
That depends on who the employee is, what they said, and the context. Here are the key legal principles:
- General Rule: Government employees do not give up their First Amendment rights, but those rights are limited when speech conflicts with the government’s role as an employer.
- The Supreme Court’s Pickering test (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968) sets the framework:
1 - Was the employee speaking as a private citizen (not as part of their job duties)?
2 - Was the speech on a matter of public concern (politics, public figures, government conduct, etc.)?
3 - If yes to both, then the court balances the employee’s free speech rights against the government’s interest in maintaining efficient, disruption-free operations.
2. Negative Comments About a Public Person
- If the comments are political opinions or criticisms of a public figure (e.g., an elected official, celebrity, activist): Courts usually treat this as speech on a matter of public concern, which leans toward protection.
- If the comments are personal insults, harassment, or threats: Protection is weaker, and the state can discipline or fire if it undermines workplace discipline or the agency’s credibility.
3. Speaking as a Citizen vs. Employee Duty
- If the employee’s comments are made on their own time, on personal social media, not part of their official role, the First Amendment usually applies.
- But if the comments relate to their official job duties (e.g., a state communications officer trashing the governor online), then the employer can discipline without First Amendment limits (per Garcetti v. Ceballos, 2006).
4. Bottom Line
- A state employee can be fired for negative comments about a public person if the employer shows the comments:
- Disrupted the workplace,
- Harmed the agency’s mission, or
- Were made as part of the employee’s official duties.
But if the comments are private speech on public issues, the employee usually has strong constitutional protection.
- If the comments are political opinions or criticisms of a public figure (e.g., an elected official, celebrity, activist): Courts usually treat this as speech on a matter of public concern, which leans toward protection.
- If the comments are personal insults, harassment, or threats: Protection is weaker, and the state can discipline or fire if it undermines workplace discipline or the agency’s credibility.
3. Speaking as a Citizen vs. Employee Duty
- If the employee’s comments are made on their own time, on personal social media, not part of their official role, the First Amendment usually applies.
- But if the comments relate to their official job duties (e.g., a state communications officer trashing the governor online), then the employer can discipline without First Amendment limits (per Garcetti v. Ceballos, 2006).
4. Bottom Line
- A state employee can be fired for negative comments about a public person if the employer shows the comments:
- Disrupted the workplace,
- Harmed the agency’s mission, or
- Were made as part of the employee’s official duties.
But if the comments are private speech on public issues, the employee usually has strong constitutional protection.
