Five months after the shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk, a right-wing activist, a wave of legal actions has emerged. Many Americans are facing scrutiny or even losing their jobs due to their online expressions about the incident.
One notable case involves Larry Bushart, a retired police officer from Lexington, Tennessee. Bushart, a progressive thinker and self-described “keyboard warrior,” shared memes that poked fun at Republican officials mourning Kirk. This led local police to visit him.
“They seemed confused,” Bushart recounted. They were there because of a Facebook post he made, which referenced a comment from former President Trump regarding a school shooting. Bushart used this comment to criticize a memorial for Kirk. The local sheriff interpreted his post as a possible threat against a local school—though Bushart argued that his post was clearly about Kirk’s death.
Sheriff Nick Weems requested the police visit, and when Bushart refused to delete his post, he was arrested. Weems later expressed frustration that Bushart wouldn’t back down and felt that the situation spiraled from there. Bushart spent 37 days in jail, unable to make a steep $2 million bond. Ultimately, prosecutors dropped the charges due to increasing public outcry, and now he’s pursuing legal action with help from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
David Rubin, an attorney with FIRE, highlighted the serious power held by local officials. “They can imprison you or revoke your business license,” he noted. Rubin is aware of at least 13 lawsuits involving others facing job termination over their responses related to Kirk.
The situation reflects a larger trend—what many are calling “cancel culture.” Rubin called it a troubling response that often seeks to hurt someone’s career.
Recently, the American Federation of Teachers filed a lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency. This came after the agency collected hundreds of complaints about teachers who posted “inappropriate content” regarding Kirk. In total, 354 complaints were lodged, with 95 still under investigation. Critics argue this policy creates a “wave of retribution” against perceived dissent.
Public figures, including Vice President JD Vance, have spoken on the matter. Vance urged listeners to report anyone celebrating Kirk’s murder. “Call them out, and hell, call their employer,” he stated, highlighting the cultural tensions surrounding speech and consequence.
Jessica Levinson, a law professor, noted that the dynamics of cancel culture today resemble past trends. However, she pointed out significant legal differences now, particularly regarding the influence of powerful elected officials. The question arises: can their statements lead to coercion of private employers?
Some cases illustrate how public statements can backfire. An art professor at the University of South Dakota nearly lost his job over a post describing Kirk as a “hate-spreading Nazi.” When the governor of South Dakota publicly endorsed the professor’s firing, it arguably strengthened his defense, and he ultimately retained his position.
In essence, the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination has sparked intense discussions about free speech, government power, and accountability. As these legal battles unfold, many are forced to reconsider the fine line between expressing opinions and facing real-world consequences for those views.
For further insight, you can explore articles on NPR or the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) for a deeper understanding of these emerging issues.
