NEW YORK CITY, New York: After the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the fallout has stretched far beyond politics and into the workplace. Dozens of people, from journalists to teachers, have lost jobs in recent days after their online comments about Kirk's death were flagged, shared, and amplified by conservative activists.

MSNBC political analyst Matthew Dowd was among those fired, while right-wing influencer Laura Loomer vowed to derail the careers of anyone she saw as celebrating Kirk's death. The rapid pace of firings has renewed questions about where the line lies between free expression and employer control.

In the U.S., workers have fewer protections than many realize. "Most people think they have a right to free speech … but that doesn't necessarily apply in the workplace," said Vanessa Matsis-McCready, associate general counsel and vice president of HR Services for Engage PEO. "Most employees in the private sector do not have any protections for that type of speech at work."

Most U.S. states follow "at-will" employment law, which allows companies to dismiss workers for nearly any reason. Andrew Kragie, a labor attorney, noted: "The First Amendment does not apply in private workplaces to protect employees' speech. It actually does protect employers' right to make decisions about employees, based on employees' speech."

Some states offer limited safeguards. A few prohibit employers from punishing workers for their political views or protect "legal off-duty conduct." However, those laws often allow exceptions if the conduct is viewed as damaging to the employer's business or reputation.

Public employees face different legal standards since the government is their employer. The First Amendment may protect comments on matters of public concern, though discipline is still allowed if speech disrupts the agency's work.

The Pentagon moved quickly to impose strict rules after the shooting. Spokesman Sean Parnell said last week that the Defense Department had adopted a "zero tolerance" policy against service members or civilian staff mocking or celebrating Kirk's killing. "It is unacceptable for military personnel and Department of War civilians to celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American," Parnell wrote.

Experts say the rise of social platforms has blurred the line between private opinion and public broadcast. "People don't realize when they're on social media, it is the town square," said Amy Dufrane, CEO of the Human Resource Certification Institute. "They're not having a private conversation with the neighbor over the fence. They're really broadcasting their views."

Employers see online activity as part of brand reputation management — and viral posts can bring heavy pressure. "Some of the individuals that had posted and their posts went viral, all of a sudden the phone lines of their employers were just nonstop calls complaining," Matsis-McCready said.

Though firings tied to speech aren't new, the intensity of the backlash after Kirk's death has left many employees newly aware that free speech protections stop short at the workplace door.