Posted on Sep 17, 2025
At least 8 troops punished for social media comments about Charlie Kirk’s death
377
21
11
3
3
0
So what are your thoughts on police state of our military sharing personal opinions on their personal accounts during their personal time? We're not talking about them doing this in a manner that represents the military or their duty position as that would be a clear violation. Should we hold our elected officials to the same standard as we've seen some of them mock deaths of those they viewed as the opposition as well as made comments implying they condone certain violence. So what are your thoughts my fellow free speech warriors. Careful of your hypocrisy.
At least 8 troops punished for social media comments about Charlie Kirk’s death
Posted from taskandpurpose.comPosted in these groups: 
Political Opinions
Political Opinions
Posted 4 mo ago
Responses: 2
6
6
0
I do not believe Charlie Kirk would approve people losing jobs and taking heat for negative comments regarding his death. If we want to honor Charlie Kirk, we should do as he did and allow all voices to speak.
(6)
(0)
CW3 Richard "Lee" Doty
Byron, agreed. I certainly don't condone murdering anybody for their opinions, political or otherwise, nor do I agree with mocking somebody because they were the target of an assassin. HOWEVER, the First Amendment specifically addresses the rights of free speech as they apply to the government abridging those rights. This would appear to be a case of the government "...abridging [that] freedom of speech...." While I'm not a lawyer, and I may have completely missed something critical to the issue, my guess is that those who have been targeted by this administration (in this case DOD) for their opinions will have lawyered up, and will be arguing that this is in violation of their First Amendment rights. I'll be interested in seeing how it plays out.
(2)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
I agree. I enjoyed watching Kirk get lit up with facts in debates. Political violence of any kind is unacceptable.
Organizations, government and private, shouldn't be selective on who can have free speech and who can't. Especially in the private or commercial sector where a business can reject a customer out of employer's personal beliefs but then we flip and say this other business has to accept a customer's business regardless of an employer or employee's personal belief. I hate hypocrisy.
Organizations, government and private, shouldn't be selective on who can have free speech and who can't. Especially in the private or commercial sector where a business can reject a customer out of employer's personal beliefs but then we flip and say this other business has to accept a customer's business regardless of an employer or employee's personal belief. I hate hypocrisy.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
MAJ James Woods - Personally, I have never understood businesses that refuse business based on a lifestyle, nor will I understand customers that sue over someone not wanting their money. As long as knowledge of your personal life does not make me complicit in a crime, I do not care enough to get into other people's lives. When my wife was baking some of the cake orders were a bit odd. She did not care, it was money in our pockets. A lot of these problems could be solved by adults being adults.
(2)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
MAJ Byron Oyler Adults should be adults. Couldn't agree more. From top (federal) down(local), we have the biggest snowflakes in charge at every level of government. We need grownups at every table (left to right).
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
The right to free speech does not negate taking responsibility for what you say. If I speak ill of my company in a public forum (even with a personal account) I could and would likely be suspended or fired. In the case of private sector employers, they have the right to decide if your words are hurting their reputation and business. I believe the same applies to those in the military, regardless of whether they are on their personal social media accounts (in a public space). After all, we could be held accountable for making threats, disparaging a President or the officers we serve under. Even on personal accounts. For officers, this particular subject likely crosses the line of article 133 (conduct unbecoming) along with 134 (specifically actions that could potentially harm the service or disgrace its members), which encompasses all service members. After all, they are applauding the death of an innocent and well recognized American citizen who simply had a polarized opinion, and chose to articulate it to millions of people in this country. I would same the same for those who applaud the murders of Speaker Melissa and Mark Hortman, MLK, JFK, Lincoln, and the attempted murders of any President. To articulate this hate says there is something dark in them, that they can't even find the fortitude to bury those feelings when speaking or writing in public.
That does not make me a free speech denier in any way. Free speech is specifically states; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In fact, I am so much of full supporter of free speech for this very reason. I want those people to be placed on center stage so we know them for who they are. If they want to post their political opinions, radicalized sentiments, applaud murdering innocent citizens, plans to harm others, and then some, so be it. But don't expect me to feel bad when they face the consequences in the workplace.
In the end the government isn't making a law against or abridging the right to speak here. They, as employers, are holding you responsible for what you say. Similar to when exercising my right to use a gun does not mean I take no responsibility causing harm with that gun. These servicemen and women are still free to continue their speech and will not be put in jail for exercising it, but they will be held responsible for hateful statements made against an innocent American. I would imagine this could mean an end to their career at least, or a discharge, for potentially disgracing the uniform they wear, which is supposed to represent our duty to protect and defend all Americans, regardless of their political opinions and words. Are there nuances and anecdotes to all this? Probably. In Charlie's case, we have roughly half of the nation at least morning this loss, with most of the rest of this nation fully condemning the actions of his murderer. Read the room and consider your words and actions.
That does not make me a free speech denier in any way. Free speech is specifically states; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In fact, I am so much of full supporter of free speech for this very reason. I want those people to be placed on center stage so we know them for who they are. If they want to post their political opinions, radicalized sentiments, applaud murdering innocent citizens, plans to harm others, and then some, so be it. But don't expect me to feel bad when they face the consequences in the workplace.
In the end the government isn't making a law against or abridging the right to speak here. They, as employers, are holding you responsible for what you say. Similar to when exercising my right to use a gun does not mean I take no responsibility causing harm with that gun. These servicemen and women are still free to continue their speech and will not be put in jail for exercising it, but they will be held responsible for hateful statements made against an innocent American. I would imagine this could mean an end to their career at least, or a discharge, for potentially disgracing the uniform they wear, which is supposed to represent our duty to protect and defend all Americans, regardless of their political opinions and words. Are there nuances and anecdotes to all this? Probably. In Charlie's case, we have roughly half of the nation at least morning this loss, with most of the rest of this nation fully condemning the actions of his murderer. Read the room and consider your words and actions.
(6)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
I will stand by my statement and we will likely never know how Charlie would feel, unless you can point to a time in which this has happened and he articulated his thoughts on it. Again, no one is being denied their free speech, and I would contend Charlie would agree, that if a company or our military is gaining a negative reputation for having members that would articulate this objective hate, he would not blame them for taking action. Especially in this exact example, in which the purpose of his murderer was to deny someone of speech and as a result deters other from doing the same. Would/should the military or an employer do nothing if someone made racist statements? Sexist statements? What if they openly applauded the assassination of a serving president or presidential candidate? Would you do nothing if you were informed and provided the evidence that one of your Soldiers made any of the above statements?
I agree with Charlie's stated position on welcoming free speech from all, no matter what it is they say. But I also believe he would agree there should be consequences in people's words (some can be good by the way). Those of us when serving in the military have (had) an added responsibility to be careful in what we say, because we represent this government, and we're held to a higher standard. That said, we don't have to necessarily fire everyone or bring more attention to the issue. I realize people in the heat of any moment can tend to allow their emotions to get the best of them, and I'm willing to allow people to have the opportunity to correct themselves. But it should also be pointed out, that those same people are welcome to challenge those organizations whom they deemed took far too extreme of an action against them. This happened to Gina Carano, for political statements and she successfully settled with Disney over it many years later. But we're not exactly talking about political statements in Charlie's case are we? No, this is about applauding murder of an innocent American who had clear political perspectives happened to differ with a good portion of half the country. So at a minimum, I have no problem with the military doing an investigation and sanity check of people in leadership positions that condone and applaud this kind of behavior.
I agree with Charlie's stated position on welcoming free speech from all, no matter what it is they say. But I also believe he would agree there should be consequences in people's words (some can be good by the way). Those of us when serving in the military have (had) an added responsibility to be careful in what we say, because we represent this government, and we're held to a higher standard. That said, we don't have to necessarily fire everyone or bring more attention to the issue. I realize people in the heat of any moment can tend to allow their emotions to get the best of them, and I'm willing to allow people to have the opportunity to correct themselves. But it should also be pointed out, that those same people are welcome to challenge those organizations whom they deemed took far too extreme of an action against them. This happened to Gina Carano, for political statements and she successfully settled with Disney over it many years later. But we're not exactly talking about political statements in Charlie's case are we? No, this is about applauding murder of an innocent American who had clear political perspectives happened to differ with a good portion of half the country. So at a minimum, I have no problem with the military doing an investigation and sanity check of people in leadership positions that condone and applaud this kind of behavior.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
1. We don't know what the criticism was as none of it has been shared. 2. Private companies and government or military follow different rules under the law. Can one have an opinion about their employer or company in a public forum? Yes. Unless that opinion causes legal or financial harm, the employer has no real cause for termination other than retribution which can lead to a wrongful termination suit. 3. In uniform, none of us can criticize our gov't, our leaders, or public figures while giving perception were representing our organization. That's where articles 133 and 134 come in play. Off duty, expressing a non-violent opinion that represents one as a citizen with 1A rights is not a violation of UCMJ or their oath of office. Generals that publicly criticized their leaders in an interview or speech while wearing the uniform were properly fired.
Now having seen many social media posts by active duty members and politicians the last 17 years that supported violent rhetoric about political opposition, perhaps every one of them should've been investigated and removed permanently from their duties. Oh wait, they claimed free speech and not representing their position. I disagreed with their intent but agreed it was free speech as long as it didn't call for more violence and hate. So I agree,
Now having seen many social media posts by active duty members and politicians the last 17 years that supported violent rhetoric about political opposition, perhaps every one of them should've been investigated and removed permanently from their duties. Oh wait, they claimed free speech and not representing their position. I disagreed with their intent but agreed it was free speech as long as it didn't call for more violence and hate. So I agree,
(0)
(0)
CW3 Richard "Lee" Doty
Mac, unless I've missed some critical piece of the puzzle here, this is not a private entity doing this. By all indications, the DOD is doing this, which would seem to make it a First Amendment issue of the government abridging free speech. THAT'S a different issue, and why I stand by my comment above (at least until somebody points out where the flaw is in my logic). To be clear, I absolutely do not agree with his shooting, nor making light of it.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
1. No, we don't, which one could argue that it is premature for folks to assume there is a police state. 2. There are some different rules and in fact, those of us serving actively in the military are held to an even higher standard than most. Can someone have an opinion of their employer? Sure. Does that mean they can say anything disparaging or for that matter considered against the company's ethics or moral views? No. Similar rules exist in the military and the hate directed at Charlie is not confined to a simple political perspective (it might create a bias against him). Murdering an innocent American is wrong, immoral, and against the law. There is no excuse for it and no excuse to rationalize it. I think your problem here is you're framing this as political speech, when it is not. We are talking about condoning the murder of an innocent American who held a notable political position, based on his position. I would say it is no different than condoning the murder of MLK, based on his positions and success in getting people to agree about racial injustice. Do you believe anyone in the military today would not be investigated and punished for condoning his assassination?
Assuming these military members expressed their support for or justified the murder of Kirk on social media (where privacy is virtually non-existent), they are in turn creating an appearance that military members condone assassination. This leads to more of the same. You call this a non-violent opinion... Define that because the way I see it, we ARE talking about violent opinions when they condone the behavior. Articles 133 / 134 DO apply potentially as they represent hold our military members to a higher standard. We don't want people serving who express support for criminally illegal behavior. Especially in leadership positions where it is their obligation and duty to hold and enforce that higher standard.
So for all those folks that expressed similar speech, I invite you to say something. When the people in our military cross the line, we are obligated to report it. If I found someone here condoning the murder of the Minnesota Rep. Hortman and her husband, I would definitely raise it up to the admins to take action.
CW3 Doty, see the above and I think you need to re-read my points. Members of the military are required hold a higher standard and that does not allow for condoning highly illegal actions. Just because the government is the employer does not equate to the government is creating a law abridging speech. Furthermore, the right to speech does not negate one's responsibility for what they say. If a military officer goes on a racist rant, using the N word to fellow military members, civilians, or foreign nationals, they will be held accountable. Why is that? Because it does not reflect well on the military... Just like condoning murder of innocent Americans for their legal and political perspectives/actions. If someone assassinated George Soros, I would absolutely feel the same way. This is not how we challenge the political actions and words of others you do not agree with.
Assuming these military members expressed their support for or justified the murder of Kirk on social media (where privacy is virtually non-existent), they are in turn creating an appearance that military members condone assassination. This leads to more of the same. You call this a non-violent opinion... Define that because the way I see it, we ARE talking about violent opinions when they condone the behavior. Articles 133 / 134 DO apply potentially as they represent hold our military members to a higher standard. We don't want people serving who express support for criminally illegal behavior. Especially in leadership positions where it is their obligation and duty to hold and enforce that higher standard.
So for all those folks that expressed similar speech, I invite you to say something. When the people in our military cross the line, we are obligated to report it. If I found someone here condoning the murder of the Minnesota Rep. Hortman and her husband, I would definitely raise it up to the admins to take action.
CW3 Doty, see the above and I think you need to re-read my points. Members of the military are required hold a higher standard and that does not allow for condoning highly illegal actions. Just because the government is the employer does not equate to the government is creating a law abridging speech. Furthermore, the right to speech does not negate one's responsibility for what they say. If a military officer goes on a racist rant, using the N word to fellow military members, civilians, or foreign nationals, they will be held accountable. Why is that? Because it does not reflect well on the military... Just like condoning murder of innocent Americans for their legal and political perspectives/actions. If someone assassinated George Soros, I would absolutely feel the same way. This is not how we challenge the political actions and words of others you do not agree with.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google