The NBC Nightly News complains about the rash of firings of individuals celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk. A report full of misrepresentations and obfuscations attempts to turn these formerly-employed individuals into the newest, purest victims of the shooting.
Watch the report in its entirety as aired on the NBC Nightly News on Monday, September 15th, 2025:
TOM LLAMAS: Tonight we’re also hearing about the vice president’s efforts to crack down on liberals that they say are to blame for political violence. It comes as several employers have fired people for their comments about Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Here’s Courtney Kube.
COURTNEY KUBE: The Trump administration’s effort to find and punish Americans who criticized Charlie Kirk intensifying.
JD VANCE: So when you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. And hell, call their employer.
KUBE: Some employers already firing or suspending people for their posts about Kirk. Impacting teachers, commercial pilots, doctors and even NFL staff. Today, Secretary of State Marco Rubio floated revoking critics’ visas.
MARCO RUBIO: We should not be giving visas to people who are going to come to the United States and do things like celebrate the murder, the execution, the assassination of a political figure.
KUBE: Two officials telling NBC News, Secretary Pete Hegseth has directed his staff to look for posts from servicemembers. Pentagon leaders quickly getting behind that policy. The Marines say they fired a recruiter for an alleged post about Kirk’s death reading, “another racist man popped.” Experts say expect those firings to be challenged in court.
EUGENE FIDELL: Simply saying unpleasant things or unflattering things or things you just disagree with concerning a- another person who is not a public official, was never a public official. I think, cannot be punished by any part of the government.
KUBE: On social media, people who have criticized Kirk are being called out, their names and photos widely circulated. Some using the hashtag “revolutionaries in the ranks”. One post about an Army officer who allegedly shared direct quotes from Kirk has been viewed more than 7 million times.
They are not giving up their First Amendment rights when they swear an oath to serve in the military.
FIDELL: Absolutely not. They may apply somewhat differently, but the principle is one and the same.
KUBE: One of those differences: officers are not allowed to criticize the president or elected officials. Tom.
LLAMAS: All right. Courtney, we thank you.
The first misrepresentation is the suggestion that the effort to bring accountability to those who mock the death of a husband and father as a top-down effort from The White House, as opposed to an organic grassroots effort. Before Vice President JD Vance suggested people call the employers of these individuals, online sleuths were out there compiling posts and gathering information. To repeatedly suggest this is a White House effort is a fabrication with no factual basis.
Then there is the suggestion that service members have unfettered First Amendment rights while in the service. Kube’s dramatically intoned “They are not giving up their First Amendment rights when they swear an oath to serve in the military,” with help from a senior research scholar at Yale Law, might sound nice to the ear. But it isn’t based in fact.
Behold Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
Article 134 is more commonly known as the “catch-all” article. Any nonspecific dumb stuff not specifically covered in the other articles falls under Article 134, including ghoulish posts on social media. Free speech in the armed forces is subject to the UCMJ, and actions deemed to “bring discredit upon the armed forces” or otherwise affect the good order are actionable, whether the legacy media like it or not. We’ve come a long way in these past few years. I’m old enough to remember when the media sent reporters to people’s homes over posts about election integrity (among other things). Now they protest the firings of those who would celebrate murder, and celebrate them as free speech defenders rather than miscreants who…fooled around and have now entered into the finding out times. Consider that and assess where we are.
