Kerre Woodham: The right to free speech and its consequences

When US conservative activist and media personality Charlie Kirk was shot and killed on Wednesday, a lot of people had an awful lot to say.  

Those on the right of the spectrum mourned the senseless violence and deplored the actions of the left. Many of those on the left rejoiced, were gleeful. And there's no other word for it when you look at some of the posts on social media.  

For others of us, it was a deep dive into why Charlie Kirk was so well-regarded by conservatives in the US. I was aware of him, but I certainly wasn't aware of the breadth of his reach in the US. So, for me it was an information-finding exercise. And what I saw was a lot of grieving, a lot of mourning on the right, and rejoicing and jokes on the left.  

Some took a righteous tone, like New Zealand investment manager and Kiwi Saver fund provider boss Sam Stubbs. He posted on LinkedIn on Saturday saying, "We should mourn the violence but not the man, and we certainly cannot eulogise a racist, sexist and bigot. RIP Charlie Kirk, I wish your ideas had died with you."  

It certainly wasn't the worst thing I'd seen posted about Charlie Kirk's death, not particularly charitable, probably unnecessary.  

Now, the Simplicity boss has apologised on LinkedIn and deleted the post. Stubbs said his first post on Kirk's death was sent in haste. Odd, given he wrote it on Saturday and Kirk was murdered on Wednesday. Three days should give you enough time to consider what you want to say.   

Anyway, he went on, "It did not come across as I intended, and I apologise to anyone who took offence." Well, of course they're going to take offence. "Here's what I intended to say," he said. "Murder is murder, anyone celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk is celebrating acts of wilful vengeance. That is wrong, full stop."  

He said he found much of what Kirk believed as sexist, racist and profoundly objectionable, but in a democracy, he said, he has the right to speak and to live to say what he thought. And let's hope his supporters feel the same way about those who disagreed with him, he added. Probably unnecessarily. Fairly grudging, and you'd wonder why he bothered. Why on earth would you bother?  

Is he going to lose enough business to see a dent in his company? I wouldn't have thought so. Possibly he might be concerned about not getting a visa into the US.

In the wake of the rejoicing from opponents of the ultra-conservatives, there's been a backlash in the US. Numerous workers have been fired for their comments on Kirk's death. Teachers, firefighters, journalists, nurses, politicians, a worker for a prominent NFL team.

And the Deputy Secretary of State, Christopher Landau, posted on X, "In light of yesterday's horrific assassination of a leading political figure, I want to underscore that foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country. I have been disgusted to see some on social media praising, rationalising or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action. Please feel free to bring such comments by foreigners to my attention so that the State Department can protect the American people."

Well, in they came. People have been more than willing to dob in their fellow countrymen, including the hosts of Breakfast TV. A poster put up the clip of the crew shooting a Trump doll with Bug-A-Salt back in 2023. You can imagine the reaction to that. "Never let these people into the country," and on it went.

It's not the first-time people have lost jobs over things they say publicly, but in the US, the speed of the firings has raised questions about free speech rights. And it does seem odd that a passionate proponent of free speech, like Charlie Kirk, should see people sacked in his name because they're exercising their right to free speech. It seems a bit incongruous, but there it is.

Are you aware that if you do post, and especially in this day and age now that we have access to meta search tools like AI, they can troll through every single post you've made on social media going back a decade or more in a matter of minutes, discovering and finding things you thought you'd deleted? It's all there waiting to be found.  

And if you think that you're sitting at the bottom of the universe, miles away from anybody and nobody cares, wrong. We live in a village now. An absolute village, and it doesn't matter that we are last stop before Antarctica. If you say something, you have to accept that it's going to be found. If you send a text into me, it can be found. What you say, whatever it is you say, can be found. You might send it, think better of it later, as Sam Stubbs did. Too late, it's out there.  

As employers, do you as a matter of course go through people's social media? See what they've written, see what stance they take? Do you take into account what people have said and done on social media? Is that just a standard part of hiring now? Should you be able to travel anywhere at will? Or should the things you say and post on social media be taken into account when it comes to applying for the right to travel to another country? Should the right to free speech have consequences? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.