Why The Left Is Wrong, People Need To Be Fired Over Charlie Kirk Death Celebrations

Accept that we’re going to have taboos. Decide what qualifies. 

For your consideration: Rejoicing at the murder of Charlie Kirk. I’d like to live in a country where that’s unacceptable. Many employers share that sentiment. Or are at least savvy enough to read the national temperature. (RELATED: ‘You Sick F**king Psychos’: Last Man To Question Charlie Kirk Speaks Out)

Some celebrating Kirk’s death have been fired for their statements. This is not, as some maintain, a threat to freedom of speech. 

Lydia Fettig — Professor and Academic Advisor at University of Michigan — had this to say about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. pic.twitter.com/v19Vj0TcLE

— Matthew Hurtt (@matthewhurtt) September 11, 2025

“Looks like ol’ Charlie spoke his fate into existence,” wrote Laura Sosh-Lightsy, now a former assistant dean at Middle Tennessee State University. “Hate begets hate. ZERO Sympathy.”

MSNBC’s Matthew Dowd was reportedly fired after suggesting Kirk had brought the assassination on himself. Dowd described Kirk as “one of the most divisive” commentators, claiming, “People just, you can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place.”

Termination of one’s employment is sometimes an appropriate response to “awful words.” Assassination is not. 

“Can I point out that it is illiberal to try to get people fired, beaten up or otherwise cancelled for being glad that Charlie Kirk has been murdered? The way to respond to speech we find abhorrent is with criticism. Can you try to hang on to that principle for five minutes?” wrote British author Helen Pluckrose. 

Why is the right suddenly into cancel culture?

— Kim Iversen 🇺🇸 (@KimIversenShow) September 12, 2025

Pluckrose lumps this string of firings into the genre of “cancel culture.” At the height of that phenomenon, people were indeed fired for objections to insane left-wing assertions. 

Dr. Jordan Peterson has been forced into reprogramming camp by the Canadian courts for having a voice of his own. He tells Primetime the left is launching an attack on western civilization and if you want to see the collapse of a democratic country, just look to the north. pic.twitter.com/s4OIzECWuQ

— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) August 31, 2023

Conservatives objected to those “cancellations” because the cancelled in question were saying eminently reasonable things. They were, in many cases, attempting dispassionate debate with people who disagreed with them. 

Liberals usually countered: “Freedom from speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.” As a description of reality, this is true. As a prescription for firing people for polite political divergences, this is abominable. 

The question up to us is: “What are the correct consequences for certain speech?” (RELATED: Charlie Kirk’s Alleged Killer Reportedly Threatened Suicide When Father Confronted Him)

“Cancellation” is no more than punishment. It’s bad to punish people for proposing even vaguely right-wing ideas. It’s good to punish people for evil. 

You’d probably be fired for speaking ill of your boss to his face. A fiercely loyalist American piping up about his views in 1784 would probably find himself unpopular. Those are probably the correct consequences. So too is being fired for celebrating Kirk’s death in the public square.

Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatSandovalDC