Liberals birthed the cancel culture monster, crafting a society where public shaming and job termination became routine weapons against anyone daring to express dissenting views. Yet now, in satisfying irony, they recoil when their own venomous ugliness—the hateful and violent rhetoric spewed online—boomerangs back with real-world consequences.
The New York Times, predictably, is scrambling to generate sympathy for those fired after posting despicable comments celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination. But this misguided empathy misses the point entirely: personal responsibility is non-negotiable when you weaponize your social media accounts to endorse violence and hatred.
Social media platforms such as Facebook and X are public arenas, not private sanctuaries. Any offensive or dangerous posts are on full display, ripe for backlash—not just criticism, but meaningful consequences, including loss of employment. Many of these individuals were at-will employees, meaning their bosses retained the right to sever ties when their speech crossed the line from political opinion into domestic terrorism endorsement and outright malevolence.
Here's the New York Times report:
Two days after Charlie Kirk was killed, Suzanne Swierc, an employee at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind., woke up to a cascade of missed calls, texts and voice mail messages from numbers she did not know.
“They were calling me all kinds of names, threatening my job,” Ms. Swierc said. “It was every awful curse word under the sun.”
“I immediately texted my supervisor, and I said, ‘I think I have a situation.’”
Ms. Swierc (pronounced swirtz) discovered that the barrage stemmed from something she had posted on Facebook the day before: “If you think Charlie Kirk was a wonderful person, we can’t be friends.” Her Facebook settings were private, but one of her followers must have taken a screen shot and sent it on without her knowledge.
People quickly shared screenshots of the post, which amplified the outrage, and public figures including Elon Musk, Rudy Giuliani, and Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita joined calls to condemn her statement and question her fitness as a public servant. This incident underscores the critical truth that “private” social media isn't private, no matter how much you think it is. Anything posted online is susceptible to public exposure, and the fallout is predictable and justified.
ICYMI: Bill Maher Savages Kamala and Her New Memoir... And It Is Epic!
This is not a government censorship issue; free speech protections don’t prevent employers taking action based on conduct that harms the workplace or public trust.
I don’t have to tell you that conservatives have been unfairly targeted and censored and even fired for their political beliefs—an alarming trend that fits the classic definition of discrimination. However, cheering on the violent death of Charlie Kirk and vandalizing memorials honoring him surpasses politics and enters a morally repugnant realm deserving of condemnation and accountability. This is not ideological debate; it’s an embrace of hate and hostility that society has every right to reject.
The left’s propensity to condone political violence and its outsized digital presence only exacerbate these divisive conflicts. Leftists' repeated embrace of bigotry toward political opponents online seeds a toxic environment where hateful and violent rhetoric flourishes unchallenged—until consequences catch up.
At the heart of this debate is an unapologetic assertion: there is no sanctuary for those who publicly endorse hatred and terrorism under the guise of political expression. The consequences meted out—job losses, public rebukes, and social condemnation—are not only rational, but necessary. The left engineered cancel culture as a blunt instrument to silence dissent, but now leftists face the deserved reality of accountability. The ugliness they unleashed on the world has a price, and they cannot now pretend to be victims of the very fury they fostered.
