Meanwhile the lines dividing us become deeper and wider.

Regardless, the current situation doesn't prove much about intellectual consistency. It's perfectly reasonable to put endorsement of political violence in a separate category, and it's not valid to conflate all cases of "cancel culture" with each other and consider it as a "is this okay y/n" question.

If a leftist were saying "this rightist who glorified the murder of a leftist should be fired" and had previously said "this leftist who said nasty things about white men shouldn't have been cancelled by the rightist mob", would you see any hypocrisy in that? I would not.

So today, as rightists tell me "this leftist who glorified the murder of a rightist should be fired", while I don't necessarily agree, I don't go reminding them "remember that time you thought a rightist who said nasty things about black women shouldn't have been cancelled by the leftist mob?", because it's not actually relevant. (And in reality, I have seen people get cancelled for far less objectionable things.)

It's very hard to find people who take "free speech absolutism" so seriously as to oppose the SCOTUS standard of "incitement to imminent lawless action". And I can't recall ever seeing one who would agree, in as many words, that employers have any kind of moral responsibility to ignore what their employees say, even from work accounts.

If my employee makes a slur against "n*ggers" while he has black coworkers, it is not the same thing as simply copy-pasting Kirk's own words on gun violence being an acceptable consequence of the 2nd amendment.

Europe has laws against hate speech that Americans think reach too far, but the positive side effect is that employers are not the one doing the calls - which they do instantly, under pressure, without any chance for the employees to defend themselves. A European firm has no basis to fire an employee until a court has reached a conclusion - the best they can do is suspend the employee.