While the initial furor over public employees making social media comments about the death of Charlie Kirk has largely settled down, the lawsuits over the resulting terminations have just begun. I wrote back in September 2025 about the first lawsuit filed in South Carolina on behalf of a South Carolina public school teacher’s aid who was terminated for some pretty mild comments on social media. [Read more: First Free Speech Lawsuit Filed by SC Employee Over Charlie Kirk Comments] That case is still in its early stages and will take months, if not years, to resolve. And as I predicted, others are coming.
Clemson University Professor Posted About Gun Violence After the Kirk Assassination
For example, the other major public employer in the recent news–Clemson University–faces a new lawsuit based on Clemson’s decision to terminate a professor over a Kirk-related social media post. On October 3, 2025, Joshua Bregy sued Clemson University and the Board of Trustees over the termination. [Read more: Bregy v. Clemson Complaint] In his lawsuit, Bregy alleges that by firing him because of a post he shared on his personal Facebook page about Charlie Kirk, Clemson (1) violated his free speech rights, as protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, and (2) violated the South Carolina Political Rights Statute (S.C. Code Section 16-17-560). Clemson has not yet filed its formal Answer to the Complaint, but I expect it will be the standard denials of all allegations.
In Bregy’s case, he shared a post after Kirk’s assassination that said:
Let me preface this post by saying that violence is never okay and as much as I dislike someone and their cruel ideas, I would never want their life to be taken in an act of violence. Democracy should be built on ideas, not force. But I AM going to say this: If anyone thinks that a reasonable price for the second amendment is countless innocent lives, and then that person has the cold-heartedness and audacity to say that empathy is likened to a social disease, they will get no protracted sympathy from me. Unfriend me if you don’t like hearing this simple truth. I’ll never advocate for violence in any form, but it sounds to me like karma is sometimes swift and ironic. As Kirk said, “play certain games, win certain prizes.”
Moreover, the disgusting double standard for those on the “other side of the political line” is insane. Where was the outrage from the conservatives when Melissa Hortman, her husband, and even their dog was murdered in an act of political violence? Where were the thoughts and prayers from those who are outraged now? And why is there already a call from certain conservatives for retribution and violence? Doesn’t that say too much about what cruelty awaits in their vengeance?
Maybe you think I’m cruel too, but I’ll say this also – I truly grieve for Kirk’s family and friends. No one deserves to go through tragic loss like that. No one should be gunned down – not a school child, not an influencer, not a politician – no one. But am I going to allow people to make a martyr out of a flawed human.
Although Bregy’s resharing of the post was limited to his personal friends on Facebook, outside groups latched hold of the post and began pushing the University to fire Bregy for the post. State lawmakers joined the fray and threatened Clemson’s funding if it didn’t fire him. And the State Attorney General promised not to pursue any criminal action against the University if it violated the S.C. Political Rights Statute (which is also a criminal law). Clemson initially said it supported the Constitutional rights of its employees, but then promptly caved and fired Bregy based on his Facebook post.
Did Clemson University Violate the U.S. Constitution and State Law by Firing Bregy?
Back in September 2025, I wrote an article about S.C. employees’ rights to discuss the Charlie Kirk assassination. [Read More: Can a SC Employee be Fired for making Negative Comments about the Charlie Kirk Assassination?] You can read the whole article for a deeper dive into the law, but in summary, private employees do not have free speech protections under the First Amendment, while public employees–like university professors–are given First Amendment protection. But those protections are subject to certain requirements. The employee must be speaking about a matter of public concern and doing so while they are speaking as a private citizen. And the statements made must be balanced against the government employer’s interest in maintaining an efficient workplace. This is called the Pickering-Connick Balancing Test. So if you have comments that are incredibly disruptive to the workplace, then that could result in the statements not being protected.
Here, Bregy alleges that his statements did not disrupt his workplace, his classes, or his relationship with co-workers or students. Rather, it was Clemson’s decision to fire a professor that sent seismic waves of concern and fear throughout the student body. Clemson’s actions in response to the complaints, including the nature of its investigation into any alleged disruptions to the workplace, will be the key point of interest in the lawsuit moving forward.
Anecdotally, I heard from a local reporter in September who told me that they couldn’t get any Clemson students to talk on camera related to the assassination or any of the terminations out of fear of how the University might react. I don’t blame them. When you have an institution so willing to throw its professors under the bus to avoid controversy or pushback, then you’re going to see a chilling of free speech, even in a place like a college campus where free speech should be encouraged. But I digress.
Bregy has Filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Seeking Immediate Reinstatement
Interestingly, Bregy has also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to order Clemson to reinstate Bregy to his former role; to amend his employment records to remove any mention of adverse action against him; and to prevent Clemson from disparaging Bregy to any future employer. [Read the Motion Here: Bregy’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction] A preliminary injunction comes early in the case, but if the court grants the relief requested, then Bregy would return to his role while the lawsuit plays out. A preliminary injunction is designed to hold the matter in place until the merits can be worked out by the judge or a jury.
Clemson has until November 21 to file its response to the Motion. I like Bregy’s argument, but there’s no way to predict whether the court will grant the motion or not. We’ll just have to wait to see how that motion plays out in the coming weeks and months.
Takeaways for South Carolina Employees
Even if you don’t agree with Bregy’s comments (or comments of anyone speaking about Charlie Kirk), the reality is that the outcome of these cases could have lasting impacts on employees’ rights in South Carolina. If the courts narrowly interpret the Political Rights Statute or otherwise hold that such comments are not protected speech, then you will see further examples of free speech being limited in our state by employers, both public and private. [Read more: Political and Voting Rights for South Carolina Employees] At some point, those in power will lose to the other end of the political spectrum, and those rights that get trampled now for someone you disagree with will still be trampled when you wish to speak out with your own countering opinion.
I’ll keep track of these lawsuits as they move slowly through the court system. In the meantime, if you have been fired based on political speech, you can reach out to our law firm at 864-233-4351 or via our Contact Us page for a review of your situation.
