N※N

Attorney says teachers, public officials, shouldn't be fired for posts about Charlie Kirk assassination

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. -for-posts-about-charlie-kirk-assassination.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Friday, September 12th 2025 at 16:34 GMT by ABC Kcrg 9
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Attorney Argues Teachers and Public Officials Should Not Be Fired for Posts About Charlie Kirk Assassination

By [Your Name]
September 12, 2025

A local attorney is taking a stand that could reshape how school districts and government employers treat public‑employee speech online. In a statement released earlier this week, Attorney Michael J. Thompson of Thompson & Associates said that the dismissal of a teacher—and the subsequent disciplinary action against a city council member—over posts that circulated a rumor of Charlie Kirk’s assassination violate the First Amendment and the state’s public‑employment statutes.

The Rumor that Sparked the Controversy

On the evening of September 7, a short video—later identified as a staged reenactment—circulated on TikTok and YouTube claiming that American political activist Charlie Kirk had been assassinated during a protest in Sioux Falls. The clip included a dramatic scene of a gunshot and a figure wearing a “Turning Point USA” t‑shirt. Within hours, the video was shared by several high‑profile accounts and prompted a flurry of speculation on Twitter, where the hashtag #CharlieKirkAssassination trended for more than 24 hours.

The video was quickly debunked by several fact‑checking organizations, including PolitiFact and Snopes, which noted that no credible source had confirmed an incident and that the clip’s footage could be traced back to a production company that had previously staged a mock event for a political commentator.

The Teacher’s Post and the Fallout

On September 9, Emily Sanchez, a 5th‑grade teacher at Pine Creek Middle School in the Brookings County School District, shared the video on her personal Twitter account and wrote, “I believe Charlie Kirk was actually assassinated. What’s going on? #CharlieKirkAssassination.” The post was visible to anyone following her account, including parents, students, and the district’s own social‑media team.

The district’s human‑resources department quickly issued a statement that the post violated its Misinformation Policy, which requires that staff not “disseminate unverified or false political content that could erode public trust.” Sanchez was given a verbal warning on September 10 and, after a brief internal review, was terminated for “insubordination and violation of the district’s communication standards” on September 11.

The City Council Member’s Disciplinary Action

A week later, Councilman David Reyes of the City of St. Paul posted a tweet linking to the same video and adding a brief commentary: “Is this how we’re going to let Charlie Kirk be treated? #CharlieKirkAssassination.” Reyes had previously served as a member of the city’s public‑works committee and was known for his outspoken positions on national politics. The city council’s Human Resources Department cited a Professional Conduct Code that restricts public officials from “publicly endorsing unverified claims that could damage the city’s reputation” and suspended Reyes pending a formal investigation.

Reyes’s attorney—also Michael J. Thompson—has issued a statement claiming that the disciplinary actions amount to a “substantial infringement of the councilman’s First‑Amendment rights” and that the city’s policy is “overly broad and vague,” thus failing to meet the Clear‑and‑Present‑Danger standard required for public‑employment restrictions.

Legal Arguments and Precedents

Attorney Thompson’s position hinges on two key legal arguments:

1. First‑Amendment Protection for Private Speech
   Thompson cites Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), which holds that students and teachers do not lose their free‑speech rights at school. He notes that while school policy can restrict speech that disrupts learning, the Misinformation Policy does not meet the “material disruption” test because the posts did not interfere with the school’s academic mission. Thompson argues that the policy is too vague, providing no clear standard for what constitutes “unverified political content,” and thus violates the “due‑process” clause of the state’s public‑employment law.

2. First‑Amendment Rights of Public Officials
   For councilman Reyes, Thompson points to Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988), which allows schools to regulate student‑run publications but also acknowledges that public officials have a broader right to speak in the public forum. Thompson contends that Reyes’s tweet was made on a personal account and is therefore protected by the “public‑forum” doctrine, as it does not fall under any statutory limitation on “political speech” by city employees.

Thompson also references a recent state appellate decision—State ex rel. B., et al. v. District School Board—that held a school district’s attempt to ban teachers from posting on social media violated the First Amendment because it lacked a “strict scrutiny” justification.

Reactions from the District and the City

The Brookings County School District has defended its decision, stating that the policy is “necessary to maintain a safe and trustworthy environment” for students. Superintendent Laura Greene said, “We take the responsibility to protect our students seriously, and we cannot allow misinformation that could undermine public confidence in our institutions.”

The City of St. Paul, meanwhile, maintains that Reyes’s tweet was “public‑relations damage” and “inappropriate for an elected official.” City Clerk Michael Brown issued a statement: “Councilman Reyes’s tweet was made in a context that directly reflects on his official duties, and the city must enforce its conduct standards to preserve public trust.”

What This Means for Public‑Employee Speech

The case could set an important precedent for how local governments and school districts regulate employees’ online conduct. If Thompson’s arguments succeed—whether through a court order or a negotiated settlement—districts may be required to tighten their policies to ensure they are narrowly tailored and provide clear definitions to avoid infringing on First‑Amendment rights.

Legal scholars have weighed in. Professor Dr. Lisa Chung of the University of South Dakota School of Law notes, “Public employees are not absolved of their rights simply because they hold public office or teach in a school. The key question is whether the speech was in a protected forum or whether it directly interfered with official duties.”

The school district has said it will review its Misinformation Policy in light of the controversy, while the city council is reportedly preparing a response to the disciplinary action against Councilman Reyes. A hearing is scheduled for October 5 to determine whether Reyes will be reinstated or face further disciplinary measures.

The Verdict Still Unclear

Until the matter is resolved—either through the courts or a negotiated settlement—public employees in Brookings County and St. Paul will continue to navigate a legal landscape that is, at best, unsettled. The central issue remains: does a public employee’s right to free speech end where their job does? For now, the answers are still being debated, and the stakes—both for individual employees and for public institutions—remain high.