Charlie Kirk respected free speech. So does Paso Robles school district | Opinion

At least 145 people have been fired as a result of comments, both written and verbal, made in the wake of the assassination of right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk.

Some have since filed lawsuits alleging their dismissals violated their right to free speech — cases that could take years and, in the case of public agencies, cost tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars.

The Paso Robles Unified School District recently decided that assistant basketball coach Netta Perkins should not be among those terminated for her response to Kirk’s killing.

We weren’t privy to discussions, but given the circumstances, this could not have been an easy decision.

According to the screenshots shared on social media, Perkins allegedly wrote, “God does not like ugly! Charlie Kirk reap wat u sow!” and “White on white crime let them sit in it!”

The district issued a well-reasoned statement that explained its decision.

“In some cases, you may see employees of private companies face immediate consequences for things they post online. Public schools, however, are public institutions and must follow constitutional protections such as the First Amendment.

“In practice, this means that even if a staff member or coach shares something online that many find upsetting, the District cannot legally take disciplinary action based on personal speech alone, unless it affects their ability to do their job or harms students,” it shared on Facebook.

The decision took courage in the conservative-leaning district, but public officials are beholden to the Constitution, which supports employees’ ability to speak on matters of general public concern.

Armchair attorneys, however, have been insisting that the district has every right to fire Perkins; indeed, they claimed that it has a duty to do so, legal consequences be damned.

“We’re evolving into a district of shame,” one member of the public warned at a school board meeting last week.

Critics of the district have pointed out that First Amendment protections do not apply if an employee’s speech disrupts school operations. That has not happened so far, but it appears those agitating for Perkins’ termination are trying to change that.

“I can guarantee that the Paso Robles girls basketball games will be a forum to show Netta Perkins what we think of her racism and intolerance, and it’s a shame that the athletes on the team will have to have protests visited upon their team because of the actions and behavior of an assistant coach,” one reader posted on The Tribune.

Should that occur, we strongly urge the school district to consider the source of the disruption.

Hate speech is protected

We do not condone Perkins’ statements, but in this nation, hate speech — no matter how ugly — is still protected speech.

Would we want it any other way? Would we really want to live in a nation where someone can be fired, or worse, for saying something critical of the party in power?

That’s exactly where we’re headed. Some would argue that we are already there.

Here’s a close-to-home example: District Attorney Dan Dow recently agreed “100%” with a Facebook post that criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom for calling White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller a “fascist.”

It claimed the governor’s post was “shameful,” “morally wrong” and “an incitement to violence.”

What’s next?

Will calling what’s happening in Gaza a “genocide” get someone labeled a “terrorist”?

Will Trump protesters wind up on an enemies list?

Will television shows that contain a whiff of criticism of the president be yanked off the air for fear they might incite violence?

The irony of silencing critics

The claims of encouraging violence are particularly rich, given hat we’ve heard out of the mouth of the inciter-in-chief over the last decade.

He has called his political opponents “vermin” and ”radical left lunatics,” he has encouraged physical violence against hecklers at his rallies, and at Kirk’s memorial service, he said he “hates” his opponents and doesn’t “want the best for them,” which could be interpreted as a threat, given the great power of the presidency.

And that’s without mentioning Trump’s role in one the most egregious episode of political violence in our nation’s history: the would-be the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021, which the president encouraged in advance and was so reluctant to discourage in the process.

Yet now it’s liberals who have been identified as potential terrorists and singled out for investigation in a “presidential memorandum” issued by Trump, and canceled for speaking their minds

And therein lies the greatest irony: Charlie Kirk — the man whose legacy is being championed by all comers on the right — would have stood against such encroachment on this fundamental American right, because he was a fierce defender of free speech.

“You should be allowed to say outrageous things,” he said just months before his death.

Silencing critics was not at all in line with his philosophy, as conservative Washington Post columnist Marc A. Thiessen explained.

Those agitating for the firing — or just the muzzling — of political opponents like Coach Perkins or any of the 145 or so employees who were actually terminated may want to slow down and ask themselves this simple question.

What would Charlie have done?