TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — A former University of Alabama instructor’s lawsuit over a Facebook post about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has become a flashpoint in a national trend: more than 600 people have been fired or punished for social media posts about Kirk’s death, and many are now winning settlements or reinstatements in First Amendment lawsuits.
The case of Candice Hale, who taught part time at UA and Auburn University, underscores how the politics of “cancel culture” have shifted. What began in the 2010s as a predominantly left-wing phenomenon — boycotts, deplatforming and employer pressure targeting conservatives — has, since Kirk’s Sept. 10, 2025, killing, been embraced and amplified by the right, often with the added force of state officials and public institutions.
Hale posted on Facebook on Sept. 11, 2025, the day after Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at Utah Valley University. In the post, she wrote she would not mourn “oppressors” and described Kirk as a “racist, fascist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, mediocre white man,” among other things.
She says her department chair told her the university president didn’t like the post and that she would be fired; she was terminated from her part-time instructor role at UA and placed on leave at Auburn, where she also taught.
Hale filed a federal lawsuit alleging the universities violated her First Amendment rights by punishing her for lawful expression on a public issue. Her suit sought reinstatement, plus compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorney’s fees.
Recent reporting shows conflicting signals about whether she “won”:
- Some outlets reported in early July 2026 that Hale had reached a settlement with UA for an undisclosed amount.
- However, Hale’s new attorney stated around the same time that she rejected settlement offers that would bar her from future UA System employment, and that she never agreed to terms; he was moving to reopen the case.
- A separate national story earlier in July 2026 said she could receive up to $1.9 million in a settlement, but that appears to be contingent on a deal being finalized, which her attorney disputes.
So: there’s been significant legal pressure and settlement discussions, and some headlines have framed it as a victory or potential big payout, but as of the latest local reporting, there isn’t a clear, final, uncontested “win” or sealed settlement that both sides acknowledge.
Hale’s case is part of a broader wave. A Guardian investigation in February 2026 documented more than 600 people fired or otherwise punished for posting about Kirk’s death, many after conservative activists and media outlets urged employers to terminate them.
By mid-2026, people punished for criticizing Kirk had won more than $2 million in First Amendment settlements and related payouts, with hundreds more cases in the pipeline, according to a Forbes tally.
Notable examples include:
- Suzanne Swierc, a health program administrator at Ball State University in Indiana, received a $225,000 settlement after being fired solely for a Facebook post calling Kirk’s death a “relief” and saying she would not be friends with people who thought he was wonderful.
- Brittney Brown, a biologist with Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, received $485,000 after being fired for sharing an Instagram meme about Kirk.
- A tenured professor at Austin Peay State University in Tennessee was reinstated and awarded a $500,000 settlement after the university acknowledged it had infringed on his due process rights for a post about Kirk.
- A Clemson University professor was allowed to finish the spring semester with pay after being fired for a post criticizing Kirk’s statements on gun control; his settlement is believed to be comparable to his prior $90,000-plus salary.
The ideological valence of “cancel culture” has flipped in this episode. In the 2010s, conservatives frequently complained about being deplatformed, fired or boycotted for views on race, gender and sexuality, often by private companies, universities and cultural institutions perceived as left-leaning.
After Kirk’s killing, the dynamic reversed. Right-wing media personalities and activists — including accounts such as Libs of TikTok — systematically targeted individuals who posted celebratory or critical remarks about Kirk, amplifying their identities to followers and urging employers to fire them.
Crucially, this wave involved not just private pressure but public officials and state institutions. Lawmakers and other officeholders called for firings; public universities and agencies cited “disruption” or violations of codes of conduct to justify terminations. Critics argue that when the state itself becomes the canceling force, the constitutional stakes are higher because public employers are bound by the First Amendment.
Legal experts say these cases are testing the boundary between protected political speech by public employees and speech that can be disciplined for undermining workplace function. Early outcomes suggest courts are skeptical of blanket bans on criticism of public figures, especially when posts do not threaten violence or directly disrupt operations.
For now, Hale’s lawsuit remains in federal court, with her attorney saying she rejected terms that would have barred her from future UA System jobs and that he is moving to reopen the case. The universities have not publicly detailed the basis for her termination beyond citing loss of confidence and concerns about disruption.
Whatever the final resolution, the Hale case and the national string of settlements signal a new phase in the politics of online speech: the tools of “cancellation” — public shaming, employer pressure and institutional discipline — are no longer identified with one side, and when wielded by the state, they are running into constitutional limits.