|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
NEW BEDFORD — A city firefighter has been sanctioned by the Fire Department after making a Facebook post about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Fire Chief Brian Medeiros confirmed Tuesday that firefighter Jonathan Pacheco had been found to have violated city and department policy after the department opened an investigation into Pacheco’s social media activity last month.
“Following an independent investigation, Firefighter Jonathan C. Pacheco was disciplined for violating the City’s social media policy and Fire Department standard operating procedures,” Medeiros said in a statement. “Neither the NBFD nor the City disclose specific sanctions imposed on employees, but I can confirm that the sanctions in this case were imposed after required negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters Local 841.”
Pacheco has been on paid administrative leave since Sept. 15, after Medeiros received four emails and one phone call about his social media activity. A conservative X user had previously targeted Pacheco, posting a screenshot from Facebook in which Pacheco appeared to call Kirk a “scumbag fascist” along with his place of work.
Jonathan Darling, the public information officer for the city, declined to answer any of The Light’s follow-up questions, including which section of the city and department’s social media policy Pacheco had violated and whether he had returned from leave or might return in the future.
“Neither the City nor the NBFD have further comment on the investigation or discipline,” Darling wrote in an email.
IAFF Local 841 did not respond to multiple inquiries and requests for comment. An activist from the pro-democracy group Indivisible South Coast New England said the organization had been planning a rally in support of Pacheco until the union urged them not to.
Pacheco is not the only public employee in New Bedford that has been disciplined for recent social media comments. On Sept. 26, Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School Superintendent Michael Watson confirmed that one staff member had been placed on administrative leave and put under investigation for possibly violating the district’s social media policy.
“Two weeks ago, the district became aware of a social media post made by a staff member regarding recent unfortunate events,” Watson wrote in an email. “Upon learning of the post, the district took immediate steps to review the matter. The post has since been deleted. The staff member was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation, consistent with district practice. No other action has been taken.”
Watson declined further comment in a follow-up Tuesday.
“Should a staff member be placed on administrative leave for whatever reason, we do not discuss personnel matters,” Watson said.
Watson did not confirm the identity of the staff member, but around that time, a Facebook group called Mass4Trump2024 shared Facebook posts attributed to GNBRVT social studies teacher Evangeline Le Blanc.
“Spew hate and face the consequences,” one post read. “We’re a gun toting country. Perhaps that’s the issue. Sorry but I do not feel any sympathy. Revolutions aren’t pretty.”
Chester Tam, the user that shared Le Blanc’s comments, called the posts “dangerous and divisive.”
“As a teacher who’s got real influence over kids’ minds, she shouldn’t be anywhere near shaping the next generation,” Tam wrote. “Educators are supposed to encourage critical thinking and respect, not push radical ideas or okay violence.”
These two employees are part of a broader crackdown on social media speech following Kirk’s assassination. The Boston Globe reported that over half a dozen educators in New England have been placed on leave for making negative comments about Kirk, who espoused far-right talking points including a theory that Jewish Americans are trying to replace white Americans with non-white immigrants.
Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, an advocacy group devoted to free speech and government transparency, expressed concern that the government’s disciplinary action could have a chilling effect on employees’ free speech.
“What our concern is that some of these public employees might be suspended or disciplined just because their speech is offensive, and that’s not in line with the First Amendment protections that we have as public employees,” Silverman said.
The City of New Bedford’s social media policy for employees reserves the right to discipline employees for any kind of online activity that causes a “disruption” in the workplace, but does not define what a disruption could be. Similarly, the Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School’s social media policy does not directly outline what is acceptable online activity for an employee using their personal account and device outside of work.
Whatever the specific policy, Silverman said that public employers should be sure to enforce social media policies even-handedly regardless of political bent. And while each case is different, public employers also should be careful in how they investigate social media speech, Silverman said, even in instances in which an investigation does not lead to sanctions.
“That action might have the result of chilling speech in the future and making everyone a little bit more hesitant to speak their minds in the way that our Constitution allows,” Silverman said. “There’s consequences to that even if the employee is reinstated.”
Email Brooke Kushwaha at bkushwaha@newbedfordlight.org.
Sanctioned? He merely expressed a candid and well-informed and well-reasoned assessment of Charlie Kirk’s opinions and character.
Agree!
Its wasnt a well informed, and well reasoned idea, it was hateful and thats where free speech turns too hate speech, if you have a federal, City, or State job keep your hatred to yourself.
Theres alot more people who voted for President Trump and his ideas like Charlie Kirk and he CERTAINLY DIDN’T DESERVE to die for it thats for sure
One thing that is for sure in today’s world when accepting any position whether with a Federal, State, City, or Private Company everyone has to make sure they read the fine print for the agreement document before accepting the job.
What does the fine print say?
Say nothing?
Wasn’t it Facebook? Not work related.
They won’t tell you what the punishment was, great job on the transparency, they will tell you the crime but won’t tell you the punishment given, your democracy at work.!!!!!! 🤢🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
I am grateful that a link to the original article about this case was provided,
https://newbedfordlight.org/new-bedford-firefighter-placed-on-leave-after-charlie-kirk-comments/
because I somehow missed reading all the comments. I try to read them to learn what people are thinking and I try to understand the reasons why. I always appreciate when people document their comments, so I am especially thankful for Mr. Gallant’s comments about Constitutional Law, as well as the comments of others who state specific facts that one can pursue. Among Mr. Gallant’s statements are the following:
“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. “
Mr. Gallant then goes on to cite Supreme Court rulings on this subject:
“• 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.”
He then adds:
“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. “
I believe Mr. Gallant’s point is that Mr. Pacheco is a government employee whose constitutional rights supersede a policy his employer had him sign.
Thank you, Mr. Gallant, for reminding us that we have a US Constitution which is the basis for the legal foundations of our country.
Absolutely, the work place thinks they can override just because they say so. They are wrong. Pacheco should return to duty without disaplinary action!
So much for free speech huh!!!
I agree. Policemen and firemen take an oath. They are held to a higher standard off and on the job.
I think alot of them are forgetting that they agreed to this, when they accepted their job and responsibilities.
An oath to keep their mouths shut?
Never going to happen!
Last I knew we have freedom of speech. There’s this thing called, The Constitution. Funny how it’s ok for them to do, but when other express their input, all of a sudden it’s wrong. You reep what you sew. Boy when you all pass, your going to have a lot of explaining to do. See you never!
Then all positions in City Hall and government need to keep there mouth shut? REALLY!
charlie kirk supported what happened to charlie kirk
The hate in this country is rampant on both sides. We have lost a lot of our middle to the extremes both left and right!
Hate is pushed by trump and he pushes both sides to hate.
Let’s get civil again. Everyone should take a step or two towards the middle.