It isn't "a matter of significant national interest and attention" to debate whether or not it's ok to assassinate someone. Anyone is unlikely to keep a 3-month-old job at a private company for the kinds of things that he said.

And that's assuming we take his version of the story as accurate (i.e., that the government had him fired). It's just as plausible that his employer fired him as soon as they were aware of the post entirely on their own accord.

And it's a Biden administration policy clarifying inappropriate behavior online (stemming from the Jan 6 riots) that will likely kill the suit if it actually even gets anywhere.

To be clear - it's ok to debate whether or not the guy had any laudable qualities at all. You can disagree all day long with his positions.

He appears to have copies of those emails, since he was able to quote from them. From the article:

Last edited Sun Nov 16, 2025, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)

His employer chose to fire him because of that (they could have kept him on a different contract if they wanted him). It isn't at all uncommon for an employer to fire a 3-month employee because his social media posts damaged the company's relationship with their largest customers. But as I said - the feds could have fired him for those comments even if he worked for them directly. It's well within the "extremism" standard that President Biden instituted after 1/6.

As for the substance of his comments, not one of them said it was "ok to assassinate someone." The posts stated his opinion on Kirk’s positions, and the hypocrisy of those who claim to be "pro-punching Nazis":

The full quote was "You can’t be pro-punching Nazis and then pretend it’s a bad thing when someone actually does"

This "nazi" wasn't "punched". He's clearly saying that he thinks you can't pretend to be anti-facist if you think Kirk's assasination was a bad thing. That's well outside the bounds of protected speech. It could be if he had been arrested and imprisoned for it... but his employer is not obligated to keep him.

Whether that was the sole reason he was fired or not, contacting his employer and making thise demands alone is a straight up infringement of his First Amendment rights, as it is retaliation for political speech.

And you're putting words in the man's mouth. You do not know what he "clearly thinks." He never mentioned assassination, nor did he say "you can't pretend to be anti-facist if you think Kirk's assasination was a bad thing." He said, "You can’t be pro-punching Nazis and then pretend it’s a bad thing when someone actually does." He didn't even say that punching Nazis in the face was a good thing, he just brought up the hypocrisy of those who do say it.

Hope that's an acceptable moniker to describe them. They sure melted like snowflakes when people posted Charlie "Triple KKK" Kirk's own words.

Every criticism of this racist POS is justified.