|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by DYLAN NOLAN
***
A terminated Clemson University professor fired for social media posts concerning the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk has filed suit against the university on the grounds of an alleged violation of his First Amendment rights.
The suit, prepared by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of South Carolina attorneys, alleges Joshua Bregy was improperly removed from his role as an assistant professor at the university’s Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences after engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
The legal action is filed against numerous defendants including the university president James Clements, executive vice president for academic affairs Robert Jones, board chair Kim Wilkerson as well as the entirety of the university’s board (including former governor Nikki Haley) in both their personal and professional capacities.
***
***
Bregy’s suit claimed his constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights were violated and that he was wrongfully terminated. Bregy filed suit in U.S. District Court in Anderson, South Carolina.
Some of Kirk’s political commentary was included in the suit, including his statement that “we need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.”
Notably, the ACLU of South Carolina was on the legal vanguard of the effort to fight the Palmetto State’s prohibition of performing sex change procedures on minors, a battle they eventually lost.
***
RELATED | SC HOUSE ADVANCES PEDIATRIC SEX CHANGE BAN
***
The suit noted “Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University,” and that the “assassination caused an uproar, especially on social media.”
“Some responses lionized Kirk as a paragon of civil debate, while others recalled speech by Kirk that they deemed harmful and balked at the idea of empathizing with a person who mocked the idea of empathy,” the suit says.
Bregy definitely fell into the later category, taking to Facebook to repost a message claiming “karma is sometimes swift and ironic.”
“As Kirk said, ‘play certain games, win certain prizes,'” Bregy’s post noted.
“I’ll say this also – I truly grieve for Kirk’s family and friends,” he wrote. “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 being whose rhetoric caused notable damage? Not a chance.”
Hours after taking to Facebook, Bregy switched his post to private – however, he failed to do so before screenshots of his screed were shared among the university’s students, who publicized them on the school’s College Republican social media pages.
***
THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED EVENT. We have ANOTHER leftist assistant professor at Clemson, Josh Bregy, in a now-deleted post assenting to the idea that Kirk's assassination is a result of KARMA. WHO ARE YOU HIRING @ClemsonUniv @clemsonpres ??? END THIS NOW. @libsoftiktok pic.twitter.com/X9oiDxs3Q4
— Clemson College Republicans ? (@ClemsonCRs) September 12, 2025
***
“A firestorm ensued,” the suit noted, as state lawmakers including Thomas Beach, April Cromer and others “threatened to defund Clemson unless it fired Dr. Bregy.” The lawsuit added that S.C. House speaker Murrell Smith, and Senate president Thomas Alexander “sent a letter on official stationary demanding that the Board of Trustees take “immediate and appropriate action.”
While it took some time… the university eventually did take action and relieved several staff who had made insensitive posts about Kirks’ assassination from the payroll.
The lawsuits portrays the decision to fire Bregy as one driven exclusively by external pressure, and notes that in the days between making his post Bregy met with his faculty advisors Brian Powell and Alex Pullen, who “were not offended or troubled by the Facebook post and offered encouragement to Plaintiff.”
“The whole thing would ‘blow over’ by Tuesday,” Powell and Pullen allegedly told Bregy.
***
***
The situation did not blow over by Tuesday, however, and on September 15, 2025 Bregy received a five-minute phone call informing him of his termination.
A letter was delivered to Bregy the next day noting he was being terminated for “blatantly unprofessional conduct and conduct seriously prejudicial to the University.”
“Your social media repost regarding this murder very soon after it occurred was irresponsible and unprofessional,” the letter further noted, concluding Bregy “did not show due restraint or respect” and “made no effort when you reposted to state that your views did not represent the views of Clemson University.”
The suit claims Clemson was “coerced” into firing Bregy, citing social media posts made by Beach and Cromer as evidence of this alleged undue influence.
Beach told FITSNews “it’s embarrassing that the ACLU has sold out entirely to the left.”
“They don’t care about the civil liberties of anyone to the right of Antifa,” Beach added.
Cromer also expressed her belief that the university is within its rights to fire Bregy.
“The ACLU can cry ‘First Amendment’ all they want, but this isn’t about silencing ideas, it’s about protecting students from a professor who openly dehumanizes people he disagrees with,” she said. “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.”
“Clemson was right to fire him,” Cromer added. “If you excuse violence against those you disagree with, you have no business shaping the minds of students.”
***
In arguing Bregy’s constitutional rights were violated, his attorneys claimed his right to “engage in core political speech as a university professor far outweighs the University’s interest in avoiding the ire of a conservative internet mob.”
The suit’s second claim for relief noted Bergy’s status as an at-will employee. The South Carolina Department of Labor notes this means Palmetto State employees are legally terminable for “any reason, a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason.”
Despite this, the suit cites the case of Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina to claim Bergy’s termination was a violation of a “mandate of public policy.”
Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina ruled against an employer who fired an employee for complying with a subpoena that demanded she miss work to provide testimony in a legal proceeding. It is unclear whether this “public policy” protection extends to issues of speech in the workplace.
The filing also cited Culler v. Blue Ridge Elec. Co-op., Inc, a case in which an employee was fired after refusing to be coerced into contributing their pay to a political action committee operated by his employer.
Both cases rely on South Carolina Code of Laws §16-17-560, which states as follows:
“It is unlawful for a person to assault or intimidate a citizen, discharge a citizen from employment or occupation, or eject a citizen from a rented house, land, or other property because of political opinions or the exercise of political rights and privileges guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution and laws of the United States or by the Constitution and laws of this State.”
Prior to Bergy’s firing, S.C. attorney general Alan Wilson sent a letter to Clements informing him §16-17-560 does not prohibit the university from firing employees who make “vile, repulsive, and even incendiary comments.” Wilson’s letter opined that Culler v. Blue Ridge Electric is not applicable to this circumstance.
***
RELATED | AG CLEARS CLEMSON TO FIRE EMPLOYEES
***
Clemson College Republican chairman Jack Lyle released a statement on behalf of the organization expressing his support of Gregy’s firing.
“We are very glad to know that we attend a university and are part of a community which will not stand for the celebration nor justification of political violence,” Lyle said, noting his organization “stands behind the Attorney General’s office in their clarification that legislation like SC 16-17-560 did not, in this case, provide protection for Mr. Bregy nor his employment.”
“The reality is, the truly radical elements of the political left in this country have shown themselves willing to celebrate and justify political violence. Rest assured that all of us here at the Clemson College Republicans will stop at nothing to ensure that those in the Clemson community who share in their sentiments are counteracted at every opportunity,” Lyle said.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
(Via: Travis Bell)
Dylan Nolan is the director of special projects at FITSNews. He graduated from the Darla Moore school of business in 2021 with an accounting degree. Got a tip or story idea for Dylan? Email him here. You can also engage him socially @DNolan2000.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
21 comments
“The ACLU can cry ‘First Amendment’ all they want, but this isn’t about silencing ideas, it’s about protecting students from a professor who openly dehumanizes people he disagrees with,” she said. “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.”
“Clemson was right to fire him,” Cromer added. “If you excuse violence against those you disagree with, you have no business shaping the minds of students.”
W0uld Cromer agree this applies to both sides, no matter who you are?
This Joshua Kendrick guy is a clown. Look at that headshot. GOOBER! Where have you been the last 10-15 years? The left has weaponized doxxing and getting people canceled/fired for years. Shoe is now on the other foot and soy boys like you are crying. Reap what you sow my friend. And this coming from someone who knows Kirk was a grifter and his money came from… let’s just say… the usual suspects. I think it’s so funny y’all are whining and Hilary Clinton is claiming States’ Rights. Of all people. Lol. Will y’all please all move to the Pacific Northwest and secede already? We tried to back in Dec. of 1860 – peacefully – but y’all Marxists wouldn’t let us. Youre hero stinkin’ Lincoln was a Karl Marx mark just like you. You’re a big goober! Waaaah waaaah.
Thank you for calling him out. He’s soooo tiresome, incorrect and frankly annoying in his opinion (always negative) about everything.
He appears to suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Not sure this counts as getting called out, but I am curious – what about my comment on this article touched such a nerve with you two?
He’s a far left liberal trial attorney, what do you expect
You suck Trump’s dick for a living, what do you expect?
So Lincoln was a Karl Marx mark? Actually as well documented in the recent book ‘citizen Marx’, Karl Marx was a Republican in the true meaning of the word. But such subtle distinctions can’t be understood by people for whom politics is intellectual cockfighting.
Love how the whiny people on this site always comment about people not posting with their real name, and then someone who posts with a name and picture just gets picked on. Same whiners never address the content of these comments either.
In regards to Joshua, unfortunately hypocrisy is one of the many calling cards of fascists. They expect civility from the left (or really anyone who disagrees with them) but openly trample civility in their own rhetoric. Just listen to anything Trump says about lefties or Democrats. Just listen to what Fox News hosts have to say about the homeless.
A lot of the people who were listed on the website “Charlie’s Murderers” actually left reasonable comments. That’s why I’m willing to give any of the people fired the benefit of the doubt. Let them sue, let a court of law determine if what they said really warranted termination. Coincidentally, let all the people on “Charlie’s Murderers” sue for defamation.
I looked that up and I think I suffer from dunning-kruger disease!
“They don’t care about the civil liberties of anyone to the right of Antifa” Does this guy have any self awareness to even realize that Antifa is short for “Anti Fascist” and what being to the right of someone who is anti fascist would imply?
Antifa is a communist and neo-anarchist group that acts as the shock troops/brown shirts for the political movement. They trace their roots back to the early 1930s communist movement in Germany, and – oddly enough- their parent political party sided with the fascist Nazis prior to the burning of the Reichstag, thinking it was better to side with them than a more moderate, Christian socialist party. The notion of being explicitly “anti-fascist” is actually a publicity ruse that arose in the early 1950s – on the advice from the political doctrine arms of the USSR as means to deflect public criticism of communism, i.e., just call your opponents fascists, because it sounds bad and most people don’t really know what it truly is – and you couldn’t get away with calling someone a Nazi back in those days because people did understand what that was. The ruse just carried on from there.
If Trump and his MAGA Cult don’t want to be called Nazis and Fascists, they need to stop quoting Nazis in their speeches and acting like Nazis in their treatment of both American citizens and undocumented immigrants.
I am not sure how you can be both a communist and an anarchist, but I am sure Cult Trump will find a way. The rantings of their leader is frequently incoherent enough to embrace anything, as long as it comes back to “I hate the same people you do, so trust me.” Hitler had pretty much the same argument.
Others postulate that what we know as Antifa here in the US is more related to the former Anti-Racist Action (ARA) as the precursor. Your claim that they are a direct offshoot from the Germany Antifa of the Nazi era is simply not supported by the facts. Also, the right seems to have adopted a “call everyone a socialist or communist” since most can’t even tell you what the difference is between the two or even really define the two except to say they are bad. The ruse continues.
While I am likely at odds with Bregy on a lot of things (such as man-made climate change), he still has a right to his opinions and to express them. “Rights denied to one is rights denied to all.”
Likewise, I mourn for the rights stolen from First Responders in 2020 over comments they made about protesters who would block a fire truck or ambulance on its way to a call which got them fired. This was equally wrong.
I hope Bregy gets an acceptable settlement or outcome. Did ACLU try to help those Midlands area first responders who were fired in 2020? If so, good! If not, it exposes severe hypocrisy with ACLU and whose freedom of speech is or is not important in their world.
In September of 2012, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Cape Girardeau on behalf of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (TAK). TAK members had planned to place handbills on the windshields of parked cars on Sept. 28, until they discovered this is considered a crime by the City of Cape Girardeau. The ACLU took their case. In defense of their actions, they stated
“Our clients describe themselves as “a White Patriotic Christian organization’ that ‘believes in the preservation of the White race and the United States Constitution as it was originally written. ’They’ve found that distributing leaflets is an effective way to recruit new members.
Defending the rights of groups that the government tries to censor because of their viewpoints is at the heart of what the First Amendment and the ACLU stand for, even when the viewpoints are not popular. If we don’t protect the free speech rights of all, we risk having the government arbitrarily decide what is, or is not, acceptable speech.”
The ACLU is defended the right of the white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and Ku Klux Klan members who protested in Charlottesville, Virginia, at Emancipation Park at the site of a controversial statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee that is scheduled to be torn down. The city of Charlottesville had tried to revoke the protest permit of one of the rally organizers, Jason Kessler. But the ACLU came to his legal defense, arguing in court that the move was trying to restrict his free speech unlawfully.
These are not the first times, and it won’t be the last time the ACLU represented loathsome people in defense of our Constitutional rights. While they cannot take every case, they are not hypocrites.
Attorneys for the American Communist Liberties Union want to have their law law licenses revoked.
Their pleadings are a joke. An employer can basically fire someone just because they do not like them. I call this frivolous suit a SLAP. Punish these radical lawyers at the ACLU
You might want to get a refund on your JD there, buddy. That rule only applies to private employers and employees who do not have a contract. It was designed to allow Textile companies and the like to fire employees who wanted to unionize. College professors, like many public employees, have a contract. Further, Clemson is a arm of the State, not a private company. It is not illegal for private companies to stifle the free speech of their employees. The rule is not the same for an arm of the state.
Your assertions make me laugh. Try studying Corpus Juris Secundum.
How many crooked lying lawyers have gone to prison? The closest thing you are to a land shark is a jailhouse one Now go F yourself some more before Federal Agents slap cuffs on you.
Suck Trump’s dick harder, MAGA Fag.
Suck Trump’s dick harder, MAGA Fag.
Tom. Why are you so obsessed with giving another man suction?