September 17, 2025 • 18 mins
Outrage isn’t random anymore, it’s a playbook. In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, what started as shock turned into a communication crisis that exposed how words can either shape narratives or ignite division.
Here’s the problem: in 2025, speech doesn’t live in a vacuum. Every comment, post, and soundbite ricochets through algorithms, institutions, and public opinion. And when words turn into weapons, the fallout is swift—firings, censures, and reputational scars.
This episode explores:
- Nancy Mace’s explosive remarks and how her pivot from tragedy to blame became a masterclass in political narrative-building.
- The response from institutions like NASDAQ, Ole Miss, and the Washington Post as they enforced “zero tolerance” speech policies.
- The Pentagon’s crackdown on service members’ posts—and the chilling gray area between personal opinion and professional consequence.
- Why communicators must recognize that every word carries weight, every platform is a stage, and every policy has teeth.
- The fine line between accountability and overreach—and what fairness actually looks like in a polarized digital age.
The September takeaway? Speech has consequences. Some create clarity. Others create chaos. The difference lies in whether words are used to connect or to divide.
Want More Behind the Breakdown?
Follow The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson on Substack for early access to podcast episodes, exclusive member chats, weekly lives, and monthly workshops that go deeper than the mic. It's the insider’s hub for communicators who want strategy with spine—and a little side-eye where it counts.
Follow Molly on Substack
Subscribe to Molly's Weekly Newsletter
Subscribe to Molly's Live Events Calendar.
Need a Keynote Speaker? Drawing from real-world PR battles, Molly delivers the same engaging stories and hard-won crisis insights from the podcast to your live audience. Click here to book Molly for your next meeting.
This podcast is supported by Muck Rack, the PR management platform I use to monitor media coverage, track journalist activity, and inform high-stakes strategy with real-time data. Click here to try Muck Rack for yourself.
Follow & Connect with Molly:
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
News (00:02):
I'm Ed Lavandera in Orem, utah.
The sun is setting here on ahorrifically tragic day, where
we have seen what some aredescribing as the political
assassination of conservativeactivist Charlie Kirk.
Oh my God, Go run run.
He was just shot, he was justshot.
Molly McPherson (00:22):
When news broke of Charlie Kirk's assassination
last week while speaking at aUtah Valley University Turning
Point USA event, many politicalleaders rushed to frame the
tragedy.
House Speaker Mike Johnson ledthe chamber in a moment of
silence in prayer for CharlieKirk and his family.
Speaking to cameras outside thechamber, he condemned the
(00:47):
violence and called on politicalleaders to use their voices.
News (00:49):
It violates the core principles of our country, our
Judeo-Christian heritage, ourcivil society, our American way
of life, and it must stop.
We need every political figure,we need everyone who has a
platform to say this loudly andclearly.
Molly McPherson (01:03):
Of course, President Donald Trump spoke
from the Oval Office.
News (01:07):
For years, those on the radical left have compared
wonderful Americans like Charlieto Nazis and the world's worst
mass murderers and criminals.
This kind of rhetoric isdirectly responsible for the
terrorism that we're seeing inour country today, and it must
stop right now.
Molly McPherson (01:29):
There was a narrative in play, and nowhere
was that narrative more pointedthan from Congresswoman Nancy
Mace.
Of all the media that washappening that day last week, it
was these words that stuck outthe most for me.
News (01:44):
Just because you speak your mind on an issue doesn't
mean you get shot and killed.
In this country we have theFirst Amendment, we have freedom
to speak what's on our mind andshouldn't get shot.
Molly McPherson (01:57):
Nancy Mace is running for governor of South
Carolina in the 2026 election.
She launched her campaign lastmonth.
She's positioning herself as apro-Trump candidate, so
certainly those words match whatwe heard from the Oval Office
as well.
On September 15th, mace filed aresolution to censor Minnesota
(02:20):
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar andremove her from House committees
after she made attacks onCharlie Kirk, specifically on a
podcast interview on September11th.
She felt the remarks belittledKirk's grieving family and also
remarked that the MinnesotaCongresswoman all but blamed
Charlie Kirk for his ownassassination.
(02:40):
And certainly those wordsweren't much different from a
number of people around thecountry.
But it was Mace's comments,though, that really stuck with
me.
How dangerous words can be.
Because when she came out to ascrum of reporters to talk about
what had happened to CharlieKirk, she was one of the first
politicians to really jump onthe anti-democratic rhetoric.
I'm sure you've heard it, butlet's continue with Mesa's
(03:03):
comments.
News (03:04):
And I hope that every single Democrat across the
country will stand up andacknowledge that they have a
problem within their party.
Molly McPherson (03:13):
Now this is not going to be a political podcast
at all.
I strictly want to make thisabout a communication challenge
that stem from it.
Last Friday I hopped onSubstack.
I do live chats.
I tend to hop on sometimebetween 9 am and 12 pm just to
riff and have a communitydiscussion about communication
challenges that are happeningthere.
When I went online at that timeit was 11 am Eastern time and
(03:37):
that's when we found out who theshooter was.
But back to Nancy Mace for amoment the conversation to
continue it.
There was a measured andperfectly reasonable question
coming from the chief CapitolHill correspondent for NBC News,
ryan Nobles, when he asked thisquestion and Nancy Mace
responded to it.
(03:58):
By that logic, do Republicansown the shooting of the two
Democratic lawmakers inMinnesota?
Isn't this?
on both sides.
Are you kidding?
Me, we don't know, whatcondition Charlie Kirk is in
right now.
Some raging leftist lunatic puta bullet through his neck.
And you want to talk aboutRepublicans right now?
No, no, I'm asking you.
You said the DemocratsDemocrats own this.
(04:20):
But is there a problem withpolitical violence across the
spectrum?
Yeah, we're talking aboutCharlie Kirk right now.
That's the subject of this thatwe're talking about right now.
Democrats own this 100 percent.
Her remarks highlight a largerissue that collision between
political outrage, free speechand institutional responsibility
, particularly in the digitalage.
So those comments hung in theair.
(04:42):
They circulated widely acrossall media channels.
As we now know, the shooter wasidentified as 22-year-old Tyler
James Robinson.
He fired that single fatal shotfrom a rooftop of the campus
building.
He was arrested two days laterand he is believed to be the
only person involved.
His motive is still underongoing investigation but, as
(05:05):
we're all hearing that he hadvery intense political views and
that included animosity towardsKirk.
He was a part of the Groepermovement, that he was a member
of this far-right whitenationalist, christian
nationalist activist movement.
It's led by Nick Fuentes and ifyou saw a lot of the photos
that they extracted from hismother's Facebook post, there
(05:25):
was one she took a photo fromHalloween a number of years ago
and she's photos of all her kids.
It was a photo of Tylersquatting down wearing the
Adidas black and white tracksuit and she said, oh, tyler's
acting like some silly memecharacter or something like that
.
But it's so haunting to seethat because, even though the
movement's mascot is this kindof reclining cartoon frog,
(05:49):
you've seen them as a variationof the Pepe the Frog meme.
But there's so many differentmemes that are associated with
this movement so it's prettyclear a lot of people in this
group feel that influencers andactivists like Charlie Kirk they
call them conservatives Incthat they really don't mean what
they're saying.
I bring in the Tyler Robinsonpiece because Nancy Mace's words
(06:09):
were so incendiary at that timeand for that reporter to bring
up the Minnesota assassinationwas incredibly tragic and
jarring.
But the outcome of the two youcan't even compare the two and
understandable from a news mediasense of it that nationally
most people don't know whoMelissa Hortman was.
(06:30):
They certainly do now and morepeople were familiar with
Charlie Kirk and what he wasabout.
But still, what happened toboth of those people, those
families?
It was Melissa Hortman and herhusband, and also another state
representative in Minnesota wasshot as well, john Hoffman and
his wife.
We have a polarized society butwhen it comes to opinions on
Charlie Kirk people sit on oneof two sides.
(06:50):
It doesn't seem like anyonewavers in the middle.
People are sitting on two sidesof this matter.
I don't want to get into theCharlie Kirk assassination.
I don't even want to get intothe two sides.
I just want to get into thecommunication that came out of
it and what we can learn from it.
Very briefly, my take on it.
I do think what happened toCharlie Kirk was incredibly
tragic.
Nobody deserves to beassassinated, but I think how it
(07:12):
affected me.
Whenever there's a tragedy likethis, we always internalize it
Our young people that theywitness this.
I worry for the youth to bedesensitized to this type of
killing.
Both my kids watched it.
I found out about it I wasdriving in Boston in my car when
my son Connor texted me becausewe had been talking about
Charlie Kirk in recent weekssimply because they lampooned
(07:33):
him on South Park and CharlieKirk's reaction was quite good,
considering they were trollinghim and compared to President
Trump and the Department ofHomeland Security Kristi Noem,
who they were lampooning as wellin that episode.
I'm someone who thinks that he'sdriven more by being a media
mogul and driven by what he wasbuilding and organizing.
He had tremendous success doingthat.
(07:53):
But I also think he wasbankrolled.
I was reading his bio and heloved Rush Limbaugh.
I think he was thisgeneration's Rush Limbaugh.
I don't think that makes him asaint.
That makes him what he issomeone who really wanted to be
a big media mogul.
But that's just my opinion.
I also respect other people'sopinions and who they follow and
who they care about, so I'm notgoing to demean anyone.
But the words of Nancy Macethat struck me as dangerous,
(08:17):
incredibly dangerous.
Now, as a side note, because Isaid this was going to be about
communication, I don't know ifmany people know this, but she
jumped in the South Carolinagovernor's race and this
happened in August and ithappened to be a news story that
I picked up because I did alittle bit of a dive on Nancy
Mace in August, well before anyof this happened, and she's been
going through some significantstuff, so I might add in there
(08:40):
that part of her communicationefforts around this.
Although she is running as astaunch pro-Trump candidate for
governor of South Carolina,she's also potentially
deflecting from something that'sbeen following her.
In February 2025, mace used alengthy speech on the US House
floor to accuse her ex-fiancéand his associates of really bad
(09:05):
charges physical abuse, sextrafficking, recording sexual
acts involving her and otherwomen.
She said she was going scorchedearth and she alleged that in
2023, she accidentallydiscovered the former fiancé's
files and she decided to make itvery public.
So it is a big situation thatshe's dealing with and she's
(09:28):
also being sued by one of theguys who she because it wasn't
her fiancé.
It was a group of men, so she'sbeing sued for defamation by
one of them.
So that's something that shewants to outrun.
So, knowing that, for her tocome out and make these very,
very strong comments aboutCharlie Kirk, from a political
point of view it almost makessense why she would do that.
But it is still very dangerousbecause our social media
(09:53):
algorithm is defined by outrageand her immediate pivot to blame
and not just Nancy Mace,president Trump, a lot of
Republicans out there is apowerful communication move.
It takes control of thenarrative at a moment of chaos.
They create a narrative, but italso raises a critical question
.
Specifically, if you're acommunicator out there listening
(10:13):
, where is the line betweenstrong rhetoric, accountability
and fueling division, division?
Mace's call-out wasn't justrhetorical.
In the days following Kirk'sdeath, several institutions have
acted against employees whosesocial media posts crossed the
line.
You could Google any localnewspaper.
Go ahead and Google your localnewspaper.
(10:34):
Whether you're in a big city,small town, there is going to be
an article about someone inyour area who was put on
suspension or fired for postingabout Charlie Kirk.
I could almost guarantee itFrom the National Scope.
Nasdaq confirmed it hadterminated an employee who made
celebratory remarks about theassassination.
Ole Miss fired a staff memberafter they reshared an
(10:55):
inappropriate post about Kirk'sdeath and the Washington Post
dismissed the columnist for apost that they made on Blue Sky
and the paper said it amountedto quote gross misconduct and
created safety concerns for SAF.
Karen Atiyah came out anddefended what she had to say on
Blue Sky.
She felt her termination wasjust based on the assassination
(11:19):
of Charlie Kirk.
However, what she spoke outagainst was political violence,
racial double standards andAmerica's response to gun issues
.
Now there are plenty of peopleout there who are criticizing
her firing and she pointed outthat that leaves the paper
without any minority opinionwriter at all.
(11:40):
This is a troubling state thatwe're in right now because there
are social media policies inplace at companies for a reason,
but then it also feels likethere is a kind of a witch hunt
feeling in the air.
There have been several peoplein the US military who've been
suspended or fired due to socialmedia posts viewed as mocking
(12:01):
or celebrating the assassinationof Charlie Kirk, and many of
these firings trace back todirectives from the department
from Defense Secretary PeteHegseth.
At least one Marine and oneArmy colonel have been publicly
confirmed as removed from theirpositions after making remarks
online.
The Pentagon has enforcedzero-tolerance policies, with
(12:25):
dozens of service membersreportedly facing disciplinary
actions.
However, there are also reportsthat some of these comments
were made just in a closenetwork, like friends only, and
they weren't in celebration.
They were just on the otherside of it.
They weren't in celebration,they were just on the other side
of it.
It's a troublesome time becausecertainly there are social media
(12:46):
policies in place, so employeesdo not say things online that
draw negativity back to thecompany, which is understandable
.
Every company should have asocial media policy.
But where does a social mediapolicy run into free speech and
opinion?
I mean, because we work at acompany, are we not allowed to
(13:07):
give an opinion?
And who decides if there's apost just discussing views on
the assassination and thepolitics that come out of it and
celebrating Like who makes thatdecision?
It's a gray area and, frankly,sometimes, many times, well all
times I find it frightening.
Each of these cases point tothe same reality that in the
(13:30):
digital age.
Social media policies are notjust fine print.
They are career defining.
This is a time to check and seeif your company has a
communication policy.
If you work in comms, you willwant to check that.
You will need to ask HR.
If you are on a board or ifyou're in an organization that
has a board, you'll have to seedo they have a social policy as
(13:52):
well?
But overall, from acommunication perspective, we
have a communication dilemma.
This moment from last week, thismoment, sits at an intersection
of speech and consequence.
On one side, there's a clearneed for accountability when
posts appear to endorse violencePeople on staff, people
associated with places,companies, institution,
(14:15):
government, newspaper printjournalism.
If people are posting onlinethat can be shared in a public
space, institutions cannot beseen as condoning the behavior.
That's the problem.
I know that there were peoplethinking okay, a lot of these
people are getting fired becausethey're very pro-conservative
and they're anti-liberal orthey're anti-democrat and they
(14:36):
want to fire these people.
In many cases it is a socialmedia policy.
But on the other hand, thereare legitimate concerns about
fairness, proportionality andwhether punishment is being
applied consistently.
And therein lies the rub.
Are we firing people aroundCharlie Kirk or are we also
firing people when they saythese about other comments?
(14:57):
And I bet in a lot of cases,people who were fired I bet they
could go through past socialmedia posts from other employees
and probably find an argumentfor why am I getting fired and
these people didn't?
I have a podcast, I'm onSubstack, but also I have a
roster of clients and my brainis constantly thinking about
lessons learned.
And what can I learn?
Here's my key takeaway Everyword counts and every platform
(15:22):
is a stage.
One understand the weight ofrhetoric.
Political figures like NancyMace know that language is power
.
Democrats shaped headlineswithin minutes.
Two know the boundaries of yourrole.
For employees, especially inpublic-facing organizations,
what you say online can bejudged as representing your
employer.
That's why social mediapolicies exist and why they're
(15:44):
being enforced more aggressively.
Three accountability requiresconsistency.
Institutions must clearlydefine what is unacceptable free
speech.
Apply those rules fairly.
Without consistency,enforcement risks being seen as
political rather than principled.
And four balance freeexpression with organizational
reputation.
(16:05):
A workplace doesn't have totolerate speech that celebrates
violence, but it should alsoensure employees know where the
line is drawn before they crossit.
Employees should be allowed tocomment on Charlie Kirk.
They should be allowed tocomment on an event that is
dominating news story,dominating dialogue and
conversation.
They should be allowed that,but employees should absolutely
(16:26):
know what is allowed and what isnot allowed.
The Charlie Kirk case shows howspeech, responsibility and
consequences are entwined intoday's communication landscape.
Politicians, institution andprivate individuals all operate
under intense scrutiny.
Words posted online, words saidin media interviews, whether in
anger, celebration orthoughtlessness, can bring
(16:48):
immediate and severerepercussions.
The lesson for communicatorsfrom this past week is clear
that speech carries weight,accountability matters, but so
does proportionality andfairness in response.
Navigating that balance betweenprotecting public trust and
safeguarding free expression isone of the defining challenges
(17:09):
of our digital era.
The fallout from Charlie Kirk'sdeath shows how speech,
responsibility and consequencesare inseparable in today's
communication environment, andthat includes Charlie Kirk.
Politicians, journalists,employees no one is exempt from
it.
So for the communicators outthere, the lesson is simple but
urgent Words do carry weight,policies carry teeth and
(17:31):
accountability must carryfairness.
That balance between protectingsafety, preserving reputation
and respecting free expression.
It's the defining challenge ofmodern communication, and one
that I think about on a dailybasis and one that I hope you
think about as well.
Everything was so incrediblytragic about last week and there
was just so many differentspindles of tragedy and concern
(17:53):
that came out of it.
No matter where you fall on thepolitical spectrum, you can't
deny that it shook you.
But we have to balanceeverything and we have to be
mindful of our communication.
That's all for this week on thepodcast.
Bye for now.
I'm Ed Lavandera in Orem, utah.
The sun is setting here on ahorrifically tragic day, where
we have seen what some aredescribing as the political
assassination of conservativeactivist Charlie Kirk.
Oh my God, Go run run.
He was just shot, he was justshot.
Molly McPherson (00:22):
When news broke of Charlie Kirk's assassination
last week while speaking at aUtah Valley University Turning
Point USA event, many politicalleaders rushed to frame the
tragedy.
House Speaker Mike Johnson ledthe chamber in a moment of
silence in prayer for CharlieKirk and his family.
Speaking to cameras outside thechamber, he condemned the
(00:47):
violence and called on politicalleaders to use their voices.
News (00:49):
It violates the core principles of our country, our
Judeo-Christian heritage, ourcivil society, our American way
of life, and it must stop.
We need every political figure,we need everyone who has a
platform to say this loudly andclearly.
Molly McPherson (01:03):
Of course, President Donald Trump spoke
from the Oval Office.
News (01:07):
For years, those on the radical left have compared
wonderful Americans like Charlieto Nazis and the world's worst
mass murderers and criminals.
This kind of rhetoric isdirectly responsible for the
terrorism that we're seeing inour country today, and it must
stop right now.
Molly McPherson (01:29):
There was a narrative in play, and nowhere
was that narrative more pointedthan from Congresswoman Nancy
Mace.
Of all the media that washappening that day last week, it
was these words that stuck outthe most for me.
News (01:44):
Just because you speak your mind on an issue doesn't
mean you get shot and killed.
In this country we have theFirst Amendment, we have freedom
to speak what's on our mind andshouldn't get shot.
Molly McPherson (01:57):
Nancy Mace is running for governor of South
Carolina in the 2026 election.
She launched her campaign lastmonth.
She's positioning herself as apro-Trump candidate, so
certainly those words match whatwe heard from the Oval Office
as well.
On September 15th, mace filed aresolution to censor Minnesota
(02:20):
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar andremove her from House committees
after she made attacks onCharlie Kirk, specifically on a
podcast interview on September11th.
She felt the remarks belittledKirk's grieving family and also
remarked that the MinnesotaCongresswoman all but blamed
Charlie Kirk for his ownassassination.
(02:40):
And certainly those wordsweren't much different from a
number of people around thecountry.
But it was Mace's comments,though, that really stuck with
me.
How dangerous words can be.
Because when she came out to ascrum of reporters to talk about
what had happened to CharlieKirk, she was one of the first
politicians to really jump onthe anti-democratic rhetoric.
I'm sure you've heard it, butlet's continue with Mesa's
(03:03):
comments.
News (03:04):
And I hope that every single Democrat across the
country will stand up andacknowledge that they have a
problem within their party.
Molly McPherson (03:13):
Now this is not going to be a political podcast
at all.
I strictly want to make thisabout a communication challenge
that stem from it.
Last Friday I hopped onSubstack.
I do live chats.
I tend to hop on sometimebetween 9 am and 12 pm just to
riff and have a communitydiscussion about communication
challenges that are happeningthere.
When I went online at that timeit was 11 am Eastern time and
(03:37):
that's when we found out who theshooter was.
But back to Nancy Mace for amoment the conversation to
continue it.
There was a measured andperfectly reasonable question
coming from the chief CapitolHill correspondent for NBC News,
ryan Nobles, when he asked thisquestion and Nancy Mace
responded to it.
(03:58):
By that logic, do Republicansown the shooting of the two
Democratic lawmakers inMinnesota?
Isn't this?
on both sides.
Are you kidding?
Me, we don't know, whatcondition Charlie Kirk is in
right now.
Some raging leftist lunatic puta bullet through his neck.
And you want to talk aboutRepublicans right now?
No, no, I'm asking you.
You said the DemocratsDemocrats own this.
(04:20):
But is there a problem withpolitical violence across the
spectrum?
Yeah, we're talking aboutCharlie Kirk right now.
That's the subject of this thatwe're talking about right now.
Democrats own this 100 percent.
Her remarks highlight a largerissue that collision between
political outrage, free speechand institutional responsibility
, particularly in the digitalage.
So those comments hung in theair.
(04:42):
They circulated widely acrossall media channels.
As we now know, the shooter wasidentified as 22-year-old Tyler
James Robinson.
He fired that single fatal shotfrom a rooftop of the campus
building.
He was arrested two days laterand he is believed to be the
only person involved.
His motive is still underongoing investigation but, as
(05:05):
we're all hearing that he hadvery intense political views and
that included animosity towardsKirk.
He was a part of the Groepermovement, that he was a member
of this far-right whitenationalist, christian
nationalist activist movement.
It's led by Nick Fuentes and ifyou saw a lot of the photos
that they extracted from hismother's Facebook post, there
(05:25):
was one she took a photo fromHalloween a number of years ago
and she's photos of all her kids.
It was a photo of Tylersquatting down wearing the
Adidas black and white tracksuit and she said, oh, tyler's
acting like some silly memecharacter or something like that
.
But it's so haunting to seethat because, even though the
movement's mascot is this kindof reclining cartoon frog,
(05:49):
you've seen them as a variationof the Pepe the Frog meme.
But there's so many differentmemes that are associated with
this movement so it's prettyclear a lot of people in this
group feel that influencers andactivists like Charlie Kirk they
call them conservatives Incthat they really don't mean what
they're saying.
I bring in the Tyler Robinsonpiece because Nancy Mace's words
(06:09):
were so incendiary at that timeand for that reporter to bring
up the Minnesota assassinationwas incredibly tragic and
jarring.
But the outcome of the two youcan't even compare the two and
understandable from a news mediasense of it that nationally
most people don't know whoMelissa Hortman was.
(06:30):
They certainly do now and morepeople were familiar with
Charlie Kirk and what he wasabout.
But still, what happened toboth of those people, those
families?
It was Melissa Hortman and herhusband, and also another state
representative in Minnesota wasshot as well, john Hoffman and
his wife.
We have a polarized society butwhen it comes to opinions on
Charlie Kirk people sit on oneof two sides.
(06:50):
It doesn't seem like anyonewavers in the middle.
People are sitting on two sidesof this matter.
I don't want to get into theCharlie Kirk assassination.
I don't even want to get intothe two sides.
I just want to get into thecommunication that came out of
it and what we can learn from it.
Very briefly, my take on it.
I do think what happened toCharlie Kirk was incredibly
tragic.
Nobody deserves to beassassinated, but I think how it
(07:12):
affected me.
Whenever there's a tragedy likethis, we always internalize it
Our young people that theywitness this.
I worry for the youth to bedesensitized to this type of
killing.
Both my kids watched it.
I found out about it I wasdriving in Boston in my car when
my son Connor texted me becausewe had been talking about
Charlie Kirk in recent weekssimply because they lampooned
(07:33):
him on South Park and CharlieKirk's reaction was quite good,
considering they were trollinghim and compared to President
Trump and the Department ofHomeland Security Kristi Noem,
who they were lampooning as wellin that episode.
I'm someone who thinks that he'sdriven more by being a media
mogul and driven by what he wasbuilding and organizing.
He had tremendous success doingthat.
(07:53):
But I also think he wasbankrolled.
I was reading his bio and heloved Rush Limbaugh.
I think he was thisgeneration's Rush Limbaugh.
I don't think that makes him asaint.
That makes him what he issomeone who really wanted to be
a big media mogul.
But that's just my opinion.
I also respect other people'sopinions and who they follow and
who they care about, so I'm notgoing to demean anyone.
But the words of Nancy Macethat struck me as dangerous,
(08:17):
incredibly dangerous.
Now, as a side note, because Isaid this was going to be about
communication, I don't know ifmany people know this, but she
jumped in the South Carolinagovernor's race and this
happened in August and ithappened to be a news story that
I picked up because I did alittle bit of a dive on Nancy
Mace in August, well before anyof this happened, and she's been
going through some significantstuff, so I might add in there
(08:40):
that part of her communicationefforts around this.
Although she is running as astaunch pro-Trump candidate for
governor of South Carolina,she's also potentially
deflecting from something that'sbeen following her.
In February 2025, mace used alengthy speech on the US House
floor to accuse her ex-fiancéand his associates of really bad
(09:05):
charges physical abuse, sextrafficking, recording sexual
acts involving her and otherwomen.
She said she was going scorchedearth and she alleged that in
2023, she accidentallydiscovered the former fiancé's
files and she decided to make itvery public.
So it is a big situation thatshe's dealing with and she's
(09:28):
also being sued by one of theguys who she because it wasn't
her fiancé.
It was a group of men, so she'sbeing sued for defamation by
one of them.
So that's something that shewants to outrun.
So, knowing that, for her tocome out and make these very,
very strong comments aboutCharlie Kirk, from a political
point of view it almost makessense why she would do that.
But it is still very dangerousbecause our social media
(09:53):
algorithm is defined by outrageand her immediate pivot to blame
and not just Nancy Mace,president Trump, a lot of
Republicans out there is apowerful communication move.
It takes control of thenarrative at a moment of chaos.
They create a narrative, but italso raises a critical question
.
Specifically, if you're acommunicator out there listening
(10:13):
, where is the line betweenstrong rhetoric, accountability
and fueling division, division?
Mace's call-out wasn't justrhetorical.
In the days following Kirk'sdeath, several institutions have
acted against employees whosesocial media posts crossed the
line.
You could Google any localnewspaper.
Go ahead and Google your localnewspaper.
(10:34):
Whether you're in a big city,small town, there is going to be
an article about someone inyour area who was put on
suspension or fired for postingabout Charlie Kirk.
I could almost guarantee itFrom the National Scope.
Nasdaq confirmed it hadterminated an employee who made
celebratory remarks about theassassination.
Ole Miss fired a staff memberafter they reshared an
(10:55):
inappropriate post about Kirk'sdeath and the Washington Post
dismissed the columnist for apost that they made on Blue Sky
and the paper said it amountedto quote gross misconduct and
created safety concerns for SAF.
Karen Atiyah came out anddefended what she had to say on
Blue Sky.
She felt her termination wasjust based on the assassination
(11:19):
of Charlie Kirk.
However, what she spoke outagainst was political violence,
racial double standards andAmerica's response to gun issues
.
Now there are plenty of peopleout there who are criticizing
her firing and she pointed outthat that leaves the paper
without any minority opinionwriter at all.
(11:40):
This is a troubling state thatwe're in right now because there
are social media policies inplace at companies for a reason,
but then it also feels likethere is a kind of a witch hunt
feeling in the air.
There have been several peoplein the US military who've been
suspended or fired due to socialmedia posts viewed as mocking
(12:01):
or celebrating the assassinationof Charlie Kirk, and many of
these firings trace back todirectives from the department
from Defense Secretary PeteHegseth.
At least one Marine and oneArmy colonel have been publicly
confirmed as removed from theirpositions after making remarks
online.
The Pentagon has enforcedzero-tolerance policies, with
(12:25):
dozens of service membersreportedly facing disciplinary
actions.
However, there are also reportsthat some of these comments
were made just in a closenetwork, like friends only, and
they weren't in celebration.
They were just on the otherside of it.
They weren't in celebration,they were just on the other side
of it.
It's a troublesome time becausecertainly there are social media
(12:46):
policies in place, so employeesdo not say things online that
draw negativity back to thecompany, which is understandable
.
Every company should have asocial media policy.
But where does a social mediapolicy run into free speech and
opinion?
I mean, because we work at acompany, are we not allowed to
(13:07):
give an opinion?
And who decides if there's apost just discussing views on
the assassination and thepolitics that come out of it and
celebrating Like who makes thatdecision?
It's a gray area and, frankly,sometimes, many times, well all
times I find it frightening.
Each of these cases point tothe same reality that in the
(13:30):
digital age.
Social media policies are notjust fine print.
They are career defining.
This is a time to check and seeif your company has a
communication policy.
If you work in comms, you willwant to check that.
You will need to ask HR.
If you are on a board or ifyou're in an organization that
has a board, you'll have to seedo they have a social policy as
(13:52):
well?
But overall, from acommunication perspective, we
have a communication dilemma.
This moment from last week, thismoment, sits at an intersection
of speech and consequence.
On one side, there's a clearneed for accountability when
posts appear to endorse violencePeople on staff, people
associated with places,companies, institution,
(14:15):
government, newspaper printjournalism.
If people are posting onlinethat can be shared in a public
space, institutions cannot beseen as condoning the behavior.
That's the problem.
I know that there were peoplethinking okay, a lot of these
people are getting fired becausethey're very pro-conservative
and they're anti-liberal orthey're anti-democrat and they
(14:36):
want to fire these people.
In many cases it is a socialmedia policy.
But on the other hand, thereare legitimate concerns about
fairness, proportionality andwhether punishment is being
applied consistently.
And therein lies the rub.
Are we firing people aroundCharlie Kirk or are we also
firing people when they saythese about other comments?
(14:57):
And I bet in a lot of cases,people who were fired I bet they
could go through past socialmedia posts from other employees
and probably find an argumentfor why am I getting fired and
these people didn't?
I have a podcast, I'm onSubstack, but also I have a
roster of clients and my brainis constantly thinking about
lessons learned.
And what can I learn?
Here's my key takeaway Everyword counts and every platform
(15:22):
is a stage.
One understand the weight ofrhetoric.
Political figures like NancyMace know that language is power
.
Democrats shaped headlineswithin minutes.
Two know the boundaries of yourrole.
For employees, especially inpublic-facing organizations,
what you say online can bejudged as representing your
employer.
That's why social mediapolicies exist and why they're
(15:44):
being enforced more aggressively.
Three accountability requiresconsistency.
Institutions must clearlydefine what is unacceptable free
speech.
Apply those rules fairly.
Without consistency,enforcement risks being seen as
political rather than principled.
And four balance freeexpression with organizational
reputation.
(16:05):
A workplace doesn't have totolerate speech that celebrates
violence, but it should alsoensure employees know where the
line is drawn before they crossit.
Employees should be allowed tocomment on Charlie Kirk.
They should be allowed tocomment on an event that is
dominating news story,dominating dialogue and
conversation.
They should be allowed that,but employees should absolutely
(16:26):
know what is allowed and what isnot allowed.
The Charlie Kirk case shows howspeech, responsibility and
consequences are entwined intoday's communication landscape.
Politicians, institution andprivate individuals all operate
under intense scrutiny.
Words posted online, words saidin media interviews, whether in
anger, celebration orthoughtlessness, can bring
(16:48):
immediate and severerepercussions.
The lesson for communicatorsfrom this past week is clear
that speech carries weight,accountability matters, but so
does proportionality andfairness in response.
Navigating that balance betweenprotecting public trust and
safeguarding free expression isone of the defining challenges
(17:09):
of our digital era.
The fallout from Charlie Kirk'sdeath shows how speech,
responsibility and consequencesare inseparable in today's
communication environment, andthat includes Charlie Kirk.
Politicians, journalists,employees no one is exempt from
it.
So for the communicators outthere, the lesson is simple but
urgent Words do carry weight,policies carry teeth and
(17:31):
accountability must carryfairness.
That balance between protectingsafety, preserving reputation
and respecting free expression.
It's the defining challenge ofmodern communication, and one
that I think about on a dailybasis and one that I hope you
think about as well.
Everything was so incrediblytragic about last week and there
was just so many differentspindles of tragedy and concern
(17:53):
that came out of it.
No matter where you fall on thepolitical spectrum, you can't
deny that it shook you.
But we have to balanceeverything and we have to be
mindful of our communication.
That's all for this week on thepodcast.
Bye for now.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!