AIBU to think public racist / anti immigrant / anti trans posts can justify dismissal?

Well we don't know what happened in this case or how the posts came to the employers attention. Often it's due to a complaint from the public, which is reputational damage. I agree its not an easy one for an employer to defend though, unless they have very robust SM policies.

Just to note this went all the way up to the Court of Appeal so it sets a legal precedent and is frequently now cited in similar cases.

A clear lack of judgement is surely something employers wouldn't want to be accommodating in their employees. How can anyone be so stupid as to display their company name on their SM accounts and post a load of hate? I saw a trainee solicitor do exactly that and I put the fear of God into him. He soon deleted his vile tweet.

Exactly. Many trans rights activists are misogynistic in the extreme. Should they also lose their jobs?

I think it hinges on whether your social media accounts reputationally damage your employer. See Higgs v Farmors School where dismissal was ruled as disproportionate. https://www.pumpcourtchambers.com/case-summary-kristie-higgs-v-farmors-school-2025-ewca-civ-109/

'Bringing the organisation into disrepute' is a very woolly area and very subjective.

Unless there is a provable material and/or financial harm to the organisation I think individuals are unlikely to have genuinely achieved this.

Instead I think it allows bullying of individuals with opinions that are non mainstream - in the same way people with non mainstream beliefs, sexual orientation or even accent have been bullied.

So it allows powerful members of organisations/workplaces to dictate what is allowed to be expressed within it (and also outside)

Yes, they often are, with lots of places having SM policies for staff. If there is no policy, it would weaken their case a little if the employee tried to claim unfair dismissal.

A lot of employers have social media policies these days, it's not exactly difficult for people to keep their extremist views to themselves.

However some people struggle for some reason.

Put it this way - if, in the pre-internet world, you had taken out an ad in a newspaper detailing how much you hate Jews or gays or whatever, would you have kept your job?

Because that’s exactly what you are doing when you post online in a public forum.

Yes. I can't imagine what would possess any employer to want this man associated with their business.

Freedom of speech is limited not absolute. Incitement to violence is already illegal and it's quite right that it is criminal.and people should absolutely lose their jobs if they have done this. If hateful public speech falls short of criminal as not calling for violence then certainly it is reasonable for employers to start disciplinary procedures under any employment contract clause about "bringing the organisation into d8srepute" which is usually in someone's contract if they are in a position to publicly represent the organisation, and for that purpose statements made on personal social media would count too.

Any such disciplinary procedure would not be an instant sacking - it would require evidence to be examined and a chance to defend oneself, and potentially a final written warning. Not everything that might be considered "hateful" by one person would be universally agreed to be hateful though. For example, there are some people who would define the words "nobody can ever change sex, sex is different from gender and you can change gender but you can't change sex" to be hateful, other people would say it isn't, and this is a view that has already been found in a court of law to be a legitimate position that is worthy of respect in a democratic society so you definitely can't have people being sacked for something that one person considers "hate speech" without a formal process to establish whether what they said was actually unacceptable, or whether the accuser may in some cases be using their own definitions that do not give space for other legitimate opinions. Other examples might include someone conflating legitimate criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism etc.

What about someone that is vocally anti women's rights on social media? I think it is unfair to group these three together. Are we saying those in employment shouldn't share opinions on social media at all or are they ok to share opinions if you agree with them?

Absolutely agree and these conditions should be part of an employment contract.

If the service provider needs to portray itself as inclusive of certain demographics in order to carry out its service, posting in a way that belies that, if the account makes clear you're an employee, is damaging to the business, and causes repurational damage, so potentially is a fair reason for dismissal.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's a C&T of employment issue and many employers would have terms about bringing the organisation/business into disrepute.

He should but the Uni are waiting for the outcome from his arrest. Wimps.

Quite.

Both of them got precisely what they deserved.

TRA Heather Herbert for example, said he hoped Ann Widdecombe died screaming in handcuffs when he found out she had died. Should he be sacked from his job at Aberdeen University?

Racism is hate.

Heather Herbert is a great start. I suppose his job is the least of his worries.

Because boy we can share a lot of examples of this here on MN.

some of it comes under FAFO - racism for eg.

But what is anti-trans? was it a full-on "they shouldn't exist" or was it "men can't be women"?

And yes, that’s an issue too. What are your thoughts on left wing people promoting violence and being misogynistic on their personal social media? @Slightyamusedandsilly?

Now when are we going to see the hard left employees being sacked for their hateful SM content? Oxbridge has seen quite a few of their students knee deep in this as well.

As Hermione said it entirely depends on the specific circumstances.