The Cybertraps of Breaking News

On September 10, 2025, a lone gunman murdered conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, with a single shot from a nearby rooftop.

The shocking murder of Kirk poses a particularly treacherous cybertrap for educators. He was a deliberately provocative activist who frequently targeted public education and public school teachers for allegedly indoctrinating America's youth with liberal ideology. His shooting is obviously a significant news event, especially because a non-trivial percentage of high school students followed and admired him. And his death is merely the most recent act of high-profile violence in an increasingly divided nation.

As always, however, a red-hot and divisive national issue has proven to be a powerful cybertrap for K-12 educators. Even in the best of times, public posts on social media are risky for teachers.

These are not the best of times.

Thanks in no small part to social media, America is increasingly divided, particularly with respect to politics. Our capacity for reasonable and respectful debate has clearly eroded, and our responses to other people's opinions are increasingly hostile. As I've documented over the years, social media has been a potential cybertrap for teachers ever since MySpace first emerged from a haze of computer code, but today, the threshold for potentially career-ending missteps is disturbingly low.

The hours following the Kirk murder are a sobering illustration of the risks teachers face. Within 48 hours, reports began appearing across the country that educators had been put on leave or fired as a result of public statements they've made on social media. Teachers may attract the most attention for their social media posts, but they are hardly the only types of employees facing sanctions.

Figuring out the right way to approach this awful event, of course, will take time, thoughtfulness, and collaborative discussion among professional colleagues. None of those attributes are readily found on social media.

Educators Do Not Have Unfettered Free Speech Rights

For educators, the First Amendment is often more of a mirage than a shield. The text looks absolute--"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..."--but the reality is that terms and conditions apply. Courts and legislatures have carved out a variety of exceptions to the First Amendment. There is no free speech protection, for instance, for threats of violence, criminal activity, defamation, copyright infringement, or obscenity (among others).

Almost 60 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court established the "Pickering Balancing Test," which held that while K-12 educators do have a First Amendment right to speak on matters of public concern, that right must be balanced against a public employer's interest in operating an efficient and effective organization. Pickering v. Board of Education (1968).

In the intervening years, as the Supreme Court has grown increasingly conservative, the scope of educator free speech has narrowed. Schools can regulate what educators say as part of their official duties, even when such regulations themselves seem contrary to the First Amendment (e.g., Florida's "Don't Say Gay" legislation).

More broadly, schools can discipline educators for speech, even made off-campus, that is disruptive or lessens the educator's effectiveness in the classroom. See, e.g., Munroe v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist. (2015), which held that a teacher could be disciplined for her non-password-protected blog posts in which she sharply criticized her students.

Every educator should understand that in this highly partisan era, schools and school districts are not waiting for actual evidence. Teachers are losing their jobs because a building administrator or district official is worried that provocative social media posts might be disruptive or might lessen the teacher's effectiveness. This is precisely the type of preemptive consequence that the First Amendment is intended to prevent.

Any disciplined teacher is welcome to appeal the district's action or file a lawsuit to get their job back, but for many, if not most educators, the cost of doing so is prohibitive (as school districts well know).

As the old punchline goes, "How much justice can you afford?"

Irony Is Dead and Hypocrisy Is King

In the days since his death, Kirk has been lionized by his followers and admirers as a fierce champion of free speech. That is not entirely inaccurate; the organization he founded, Turning Points USA, has aggressively advocated for conservative voices on educational campuses and in public spaces. But Kirk's legacy on speech is complicated, as The Guardian noted the weekend following his death:

Kirk emboldened conservative students to turn on faculty and classmates, established a “professor watchlist” for faculty it accused of spreading “leftist propaganda”, and embarked on an anti-woke crusade that has since become official government policy.

Professors who were added to the "watchlist" (who happen to be disproportionately non-white) report that they routinely receive "crazy, horrible messages" containing death threats, racist epithets, misogynistic attacks, and more. Kirk is not responsible for the actions of his followers, of course, any more so than Trump is. But no one is telling them no; implicitly encouraging mob violence (also known as "stochastic terrorism") to attack academic freedom undercuts any claim to free speech heroics.

All of this has resulted in a small tsunami of employees, both public and private, who have been fired for expressing their opinions about Kirk and his death on social media. I happen to agree with attorney Harvey Silverglate, a criminal defense and civil liberties attorney and a co-founder of the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). He believes that firing or suspending a teacher for social media comments is a violation of the First Amendment.

"The official position of the school authorities," Silverglate told CBS, "should be that American citizens have the right to say what they believe."

We should live in a world where educators can express their opinions without fear of losing their jobs. We should live in a world where educators can teach critical thinking by leading classroom discussions on controversial and even fraught topics. We should live in a world where all students feel that they can safely express their opinions in class and out.

Unfortunately, we don't live in that world right now. There are many contributing factors and few easy solutions, but there is a place to start.

K-12 district leaders and building administrators should make the marketplace of ideas (the underlying concept of the First Amendment) a core pedagogical principle, particularly for middle and high school students. A functioning democracy requires no less.

Practical Tips to Help You Keep Your Job

If you enjoy being a teacher and want to keep your job, here are some practical tips to minimize your risk of falling into this particularly pernicious cybertrap.

1. Think about your relationship to social media in general. You may have professional reasons for using it, but is it worth the risk to your career? Can you effectively separate your private opinions from your professional persona?
2. Are you familiar with your school's Acceptable Use Policy regarding the use of technology in general and social media in particular?
3. Have you considered the relevant portions of the Model Code of Ethics for Educators?
4. Are you modeling decency and compassion in your public comments? Are you serving as an effective role model for your students?
5. Do you really need to post your thoughts online right now? Would your answer be the same 24 hours later?

Welcome to the Cybertraps Relaunch

This post marks the relaunch of The Cybertraps Newsletter. Each issue will continue to explore the ethical dilemmas, legal risks, and professional challenges that technology poses for educators and administrators — and offer practical strategies for staying out of the traps. Coming this fall: Cybertraps for Educators 3.0.