New Bedford firefighter placed on leave after Charlie Kirk comments

1. It’s time for change, free speech should not be hate speech. This is just another sad reflection on how the moral values in our country continue to decline.

   1. then It’s not FREE SPEACH. It’s ok for the right to spill filth but when someone goes against the regime its not free speech anymore. WTF

      1. It is real simple from the right, from the left, and from the center, 100% hate speech of any form should not be acceptable and including abbreviations that include profanity does not enhance any comment.

   2. I did not see it as hate speech!

2. For one thing, what right does the administration have in entering one’s personal life? Did he use a City computer or website? If not, where’s his union? What’s the Constitution and Amendments? Is it in their contract relinquishing personal Constitution rights? I doubt it. What about the Department members that reflect on their personal social media sites the other side of the coin, embracing their form of hate and racism? Have they been suspended, because I’m sure they exist! Has the investigation included the whole department or is this FF being singled out because some aligned characters made phone calls! At least he’s getting paid and in the end, they really don’t have a thing, but in the meantime, what a show!

   1. It says he was being investigated for violating the city social media policy. Not for free speech. Remember that

      1. It was private email, Facebook. Not work related!

   2. And………New Bedford Light needs to keep an update on this, of course we are still waiting for an update on the Dec 2024 story of the school HCS director paying health monthly premiums for deceased members. Where is the results of that!

3. What happened to our 1st Amendment right? We don’t have to like what people say, but they have a right to say it. We don’t have to like it or agree with their opinion but it belongs to them and they have a Constitutional right to say it however they want.

4. It’s called freedom of speech based on the 1st amendment. The right wants it both ways. No one is celebrating someone being murdered but the right thinks it’s ok for someone to spew hatred but we cant’ criticize it, that’s not how it works!

   1. Thank you!

5. So much for the 1st amendment. Shame on the NBFD for going into someone’s
   private account to silence their right to free speech.
   He did not support the death of this person, only pointed out the obvious truth that this person was a racist, homophobic, non-Christian hatemonger.

   1. That’s the way I read it, like Kimmel, there is more attention drawn to Pacheco’s comment, which is freedom of speech!

   2. I do support his ability to say what he said. That being said, that’s not what he said. He said that Charlie Kirk was a fascist. That’s pretty egregious and people need to wake up and realize that words have meaning. Christians, as much as you may disagree with their point of view, are not even close to being fascist. I only say this as more of a disclaimer, because that word is associated with the likes of Hitler. It’s easy to justify violence against Hitler. So it will be able to justify violence against Christians. Do you see where this is headed? People need to start using their minds. Words have meanings and those meanings matter.

6. There is something very askew in N B. Priorities are not in the best interest of freedom or the people.

7. So if he had made comments praising the life of Kirk would this be an issue? Probably not. Was he stating truth and fact , yep. The first amendment doesn’t give any rights to say what they want when it comes to violating work or school rules for example. If he violated a rule ok, but seriously had the comments been in a different light this wouldn’t be a discussion. Where were all the people getting fired or suspended from jobs and schools when they were posting F-Biden all over the place.

   1. Do you have a single example of this? No, because you made it up. Why do the left make up their own reality, then get scared by the made-up version of reality?

   2. Amen!

8. I appreciate Brooke for bringing this situation to light. What I would be most interested to see is how, specifically, Jonathan’s post is said to violate either the City of New Bedford’s personnel policies or the firefighters’ union contract — both of which are readily available online (the FY23–25 agreement is public). If there is a violation, the city should cite the exact section. Otherwise, this begins to look less like policy enforcement and more like punishing protected speech.

   Looking at the City’s own anti-discrimination and harassment policy, Jonathan’s comments don’t appear to target anyone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or other protected classes. Had he instead echoed many of the things Charlie Kirk himself said about marginalized groups, that would have been grounds for discipline under these very policies. Similarly, the City’s social media policy prohibits posts that unlawfully harass or discriminate. Jonathan’s post, while harsh, does not meet that standard. The policy even acknowledges employees’ First Amendment rights to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, unless it causes a demonstrable disruption to the workplace. If the city believes disruption occurred, it should spell out what that disruption actually was.

   At the same time, I think we should be asking why local and state officials felt it necessary to order flags at half-mast to honor someone like Charlie Kirk — and what part of his rhetoric they felt aligned with the values of the community. To me, that is far more concerning than a firefighter explaining why Kirk’s death may be seen differently by people whose safety and well-being were threatened by his platform.

   Finally, I strongly support individuals in Jonathan’s position pursuing every legal avenue if they believe they were disciplined unfairly. When cities and departments make these choices, they need to be prepared to face the consequences — financial or otherwise. Public accountability often only comes when institutions are forced to answer in ways that affect their bottom line.

   1. Well said.

   2. Thank you. Very intelligent and well informed response. Too bad that it will likely fall on deaf and ignorant ears.

   3. Amen to that!

   4. FF: ‘Kirk was a scumbag fascist and the world is a better place without him. If that statement upsets you, do me a favor and go reacquaint yourself with what fascism is, read what he wrote, and watch the clips of him spewing hateful, misogynistic and racist rhetoric.’ Comment states clearly that Kirk was identical to Italian thugs who terrorized Italy in the early to mid-1940s on behalf of the Italian aristocracy, monarchy & Vatican, like counterparts in Spain. Comment goes on to say w/o any evidence that Kirk hated women and all people of color. FF’s surname is Pacheco, implying Hispanic descent; and he might be the actual racist in relation to White non-Hispanic Americans, given the history of who commits wrongs against whom around the US.

      1. You go girl!

      2. Laurel, your comment is a textbook example of why the First Amendment exists: to shield citizens from exactly the kind of ignorance and prejudice you are displaying here.

         Let us start with the obvious. Nothing in Jonathan Pacheco’s post constitutes harassment or discrimination under the City of New Bedford’s policies or under federal law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act defines harassment as conduct so “severe or pervasive” that it creates a hostile work environment or targets someone based on a protected class such as race, religion, or gender. Calling a public figure, in this case a nationally prominent political operative, a “fascist” is neither harassment nor discrimination. It is political speech, and political speech is the single most protected category of expression under the First Amendment.

         Your attempt to twist his Hispanic surname into some kind of racist motive is not only grotesque but also irrelevant to the law. The Supreme Court has been unambiguous that offensive or unpopular opinions about public figures remain protected unless they constitute direct incitement to violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969) or actionable defamation (New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964). Pacheco’s remarks fall squarely within that protection because they are plainly commentary on Kirk’s ideas and impact. Those ideas included repeated attacks on women, LGBTQ people, immigrants, and racial minorities.

         Whether you agree with that assessment has never mattered. The Constitution does not condition free speech on your personal comfort. And if anyone here needs to “reacquaint” themselves with fascism, it is you. You do not get to invent a custom definition in order to protect your feelings. Fascism is not limited to “Italian thugs in the 1940s.” Saying so is like insisting it is not champagne unless it comes from the Champagne region of France. The label might have an origin, but the ideology metastasizes anywhere authoritarianism cloaks itself in nationalism, silences dissent, and targets vulnerable groups. By that historically accurate definition, which has been used by every serious scholar since Mussolini, Kirk’s rhetoric fits the bill uncomfortably well.

         Here is the part you and the city should find far more troubling: Government employers cannot punish employees for private political speech on matters of public concern without demonstrating a “significant disruption” to workplace operations (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968; Rankin v. McPherson, 1987). New Bedford has produced no such evidence because there is none. Four emails and a single phone call from angry partisans do not constitute workplace disruption. What they do constitute is political pressure. Yielding to that pressure is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits a public agency from doing.

         And if this were truly about upholding city policy, the department’s history would look very different. Just last year a lieutenant publicly called drag performers mentally ill and wrote “f*** them all,” yet he kept his badge after receiving an undisclosed punishment. That incident did involve harassment based on sexual orientation, a clear violation of both Title VII and the city’s own anti-discrimination policy, but it was resolved quietly through negotiations with the union. The message is obvious: hateful speech directed at vulnerable groups is tolerated, but criticism of a powerful political figure results in immediate suspension. That is not policy enforcement. That is selective retaliation, and it is both unconstitutional and indefensible.

         This situation is not about professionalism, safety, or city policy. It is about a mob, fueled by a doxxing campaign, attempting to punish a citizen for criticizing a powerful figure. That is not “public accountability.” That is state-enabled retaliation against protected speech. If the City of New Bedford persists, it will almost certainly lose in federal court, because the law, the precedent, and the Constitution are not on your side.

         Finally, your insinuation that a man’s ethnic background makes his criticism suspect is telling. You are accusing someone of racism because of their surname while defending a figure whose career was built on demonizing marginalized groups. That is projection, and it is beneath the dignity of serious debate.

9. Seems like a candid and well reasoned assessment of who and what Charlie Kirk was. If right wingers don’t like hearing those things they should reevaluate their ideology and actions.

10. Four emails and one phone call – and he caves.

    1. This. Absolutely this. One of the problems with a society sinking into authoritarianism is the inclination to capitulate in advance. To all local officials, please don’t do that. It disenfranchises the views of your voters.

       It worries me that the NBFD has capitulated to a very small number of incredibly vocal people. As noted above, how does putting a firefighter on leave help the NB community? How does trying to muzzle a personal opinion help the community? It does not. It helps that vocal minority. If the NBFD can’t respond to four emails and one phone call, maybe they need to review their communications plan and management.

11. Wow! Imagine having this guy come respond to your home for an emergency?? Jonathan Pacheco should be removed from the fire department because of what he said and how he meant it. No place for this

    1. Pretty sure he would do his best to save your life and anyone else’s no matter what color of skin, religion they follow, or political belief they hold. This is a trained professional in a line of work that puts his life at constant risk. Where is humanity going and where is the respect for people in professions that put others before themselves?

    2. Conservatives everywhere: We HaVe To CaNcEl CaNcEl CuLtUrE. Now people are offended and want people cancelled because it’s an ideology with whom the other disagrees. No matter how gross or nasty someone’s comments may be in your opinion, it’s still protected speech. I thought this was disgusting idea when the shoe was on the other foot. Don’t care what side of the aisle anyone is on, discourse is the lifeblood of this country.

       1. Come on, blaming one side, that does not fly. The Left, Right, and Center all need to do a better job. If anyone doesn’t have anything good to say, they should just keep it to themseleves. The hate has to stop.

          1. You’re right. The hate does have to stop. And the President of the United States ordered flags to half staff for a man who thinks stoning is a fine “punishment” for who I choose to love. Among other things. So, perhaps, this incredible public servant isn’t the problem.

             1. Wow all this stupid left lunatic talk about law this law that did everyone forget the Company has the right to monitor your social media if your working for them to make sure you do not post company things or make harassing comments about other employees now in this specific case the struggle here is since Kirk was a political figure this is now bringing politics into the work place and that can be squashed by the company to preserve its image and not bring it out to start a war over it. This is in business and commercial law and Companies have the right to do this since the day you get hired. All companies in Massachusetts does this.

          2. What are the perimeters that defines hate speech? Who has the authority and moral exceptionability to set the perimeters?

12. Love this piece of crap anonymous up top comment. Put your name on it tough guy

13. I hope Jonathan Pacheco would be one of the first first responders to ever respond to any emergency. I had.

14. Really?!? You moderated MY comment out and not this one ^^^ obviously slandering a random citizen and his work?!?

15. Good! He should be fired without pay! I’m going to be writing a letter; quick question, if I had MAGA sinage at my house, would Mr. Pacheco think the “world would be better off without me?” Probably. Disgusting! Good riddance!

    1. I mean, probably not actually. Because THAT would be in violation of his job. What he posted on his private social media actually wasn’t. If you took the time to read the actual policies they want to look into and UNDERSTOOD what they mean on a basic level, you’d see he hasn’t violated them in the most literal sense. Any ‘disruption of the workplace’ this has caused has been as a direct result of the administration’s actions – not his, ironically. He’s just offended YOUR personal beliefs, which the entire administration, AND the man all of this is about, constantly does – just not about YOUR beliefs, so you aren’t bothered much and notice less. And no one removed them from their jobs, no matter how much some would like for that to happen or how much constitutional cause there might be for that.

       Following that logic, he’d still go get you. And also your signs would probably be burnt up by then, dude, so it wouldn’t matter. Why are we conflating a post about a national event to someone’s job that has nothing to do with how that event took place? He puts out fires, not shoots people. Firefighters don’t even carry weapons, man. Can we think logically for a minute, please? Critical thinking – you’re losing it. You start learning that in school at, like, age 10. That’s one of the real reasons they make you read those little stories and answer questions about them: your brain is a muscle and you have to learn how to exercise it. Your good Lord gave you reason; I should think that same good Lord wouldn’t want you to start abandoning the exact thing he gave you, now would he?

    2. A comment meant to be here is omitted?????

16. He was right on with his assessment.
    Kirk once said gun deaths sometimes will be necessary to protect our God given second amendment rights.
    Live by the sword, die by the sword!
    His followers say he was a martyr for free speech. That means all free speech not just rightwing free speech.

    1. Glad some see clearly.

17. I totally support EVERYONE’S right to free speech unless is calls for harm to another. Kirk was entitled to his opinion. I did not happen to agree with him. He WAS everything Pacheco said he was. Kirk DID say that gun deaths are the price we pay for 2nd Amendment rights. He denigrated women, called a young black college student a liar when he said he had been called racial slurs and threatened, questioned whether a black pilot could be qualified to fly a plane. This list could go on and on. He words were not taken out of context. And he certainly wasn’t any sort of Christian of whom Jesus would approve. He shouldn’t have been killed for his beliefs but he does not deserve to be treated like some kind martyr or have flags flown at half mast. His life wasn’t worth any more than any other man, woman or child killed by guns.

18. If this person’s post was, as is written in the article. “made on his personal Facebook account,” I do not see why he should have been suspended from employment.

    1. As stated in the article it’s pretty clear, and should be a lesson to everyone when applying for a job, READ THE FINE PRINT ON ALL HIRING AGREEMENTS (Fire Chief Brian Medeiros confirmed in a statement Tuesday that firefighter Jonathan Pacheco has been placed on paid administrative leave since Sept. 15th and will remain on leave while he is investigated for violating the city’s social media policy, the Fire Department’s rules and regulations, and the city’s discrimination and harassment policy).

       1. Jeff, contracts and policies do not override the Constitution. That isn’t an opinion, it’s black-letter law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that public employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights by accepting government employment. Your “read the fine print” line might apply to a gym membership, but it’s laughably irrelevant when the government is the employer.

          Let’s review some actual law:

          • Pickering v. Board of Education (1968): The Court held that a teacher could not be punished for writing a letter to a newspaper about public spending, because he was speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern. Government employees still retain free-speech protections when speaking as citizens, ***even if their employer doesn’t like what they said.***

          • Rankin v. McPherson (1987): A clerical worker was fired after making an offhand political remark about an assassination attempt on the president. The Court reinstated her, ruling that speech on public issues (even if controversial or offensive!!!) is protected when it doesn’t disrupt the workplace.

          • Lane v. Franks (2014): A unanimous Supreme Court held that a public employee’s truthful speech on matters of public concern, made outside the scope of their official duties, is protected, full stop.

          These cases shred the simplistic notion that “policy” is the end of the discussion. It isn’t. The law requires a balancing test: the employee’s right to speak as a citizen on matters of public concern must be weighed against the government’s interest in maintaining workplace efficiency. “He signed a policy” is not, and has never been, the legal standard.

          So when you parrot “READ THE FINE PRINT,” what you’re really saying is: ignore 60 years of Supreme Court precedent and hand the government the power to decide which opinions are acceptable.

          That’s not how the law works. That’s not how a free society works. And it’s certainly not how our constitutional rights work.

          1. Real simple, your welcome to your opinion, but not everyone feels the way you do. Talk about parroting, for the decisions that you posted, there are many that weren’t successful. During hiring process if there is a written agreement that has specific language about making statements or posts like this, there’s responsibility to be accepted. Hiding behind the law is shameful and Free Speech should never be Hate Speech.

             1. Real simple, you are welcome to your opinion.

             2. I’m sorry, Jeff, did you seriously just refer to citations of Supreme Court precedent as “parroting”?

                Quoting binding constitutional decisions isn’t mimicry. It’s how legal reality is established and maintained in a nation governed by the rule of law.

                By definition, every case cited above was successful. That’s why it’s called precedent. The losing arguments are legal garbage now… shredded, discarded, and used to fertilize the ground beneath centuries of constitutional law. The winning decisions are not suggestions or talking points; they are the bedrock rules that shape every courtroom, every city council, every law enforcement action, and every constitutional limit on state power in this country.

                You also seem confused about the difference between an opinion and objective reality. Let me help you.

                An opinion is a belief or judgment that’s open to personal interpretation, like thinking pineapple belongs on pizza (it absolutely does). Objective reality, on the other hand, is something that remains true no matter how we feel about it.

                Gravity is an objective reality. The fact that water freezes at 32°F under normal atmospheric pressure is an objective reality. And the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land is an objective reality.

                You are free to hold the opinion that you’d like to use the Constitution as toilet paper. Ironically, it’s that very document that protects your right to hold offensive or foolish opinions in the first place.

                But what you really don’t seem to grasp is that the oath to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic” is not a metaphor. It is a legal and moral commitment backed by the state’s monopoly on force. For nearly 250 years, Americans have fought, killed, and died to uphold that promise. And crucially, that oath is not to a man, a party, or a president… it is to the constitution itself.

                Those who have tried to dismantle constitutional government, whether they wore red coats, gray uniforms, or MAGA hats, have consistently found themselves on the wrong side of history and, when necessary, on the wrong side of a bayonet.

19. Mike Gallant keep writing your novels, you showed your political alliance, and your welcome to your opinion, but not everyone has to agree with you. For the past four years the far left liberals damaged our country and their own party, they cannot see that this country is evenly divided and that a lot of people don’t agree with them, and it’s a big reason why so many people have left the Democrat Party (which is no more) and more importantly why the far left liberals lost the national election. Once again Free Speech should not be Hate Speech.

20. Putting FF Pacheco on “paid leave” was a good decision. It will only lessen the legal settlement if he chooses to sue the city!

Comments are closed.