Republican support for free speech wavers after Charlie Kirk assassination
| Washington
After railing against 鈥渃ancel culture鈥� and free speech limitations for more than a decade, top Republicans are embracing both following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
From President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on down, Republicans have called for people to be fired for posting criticism of the conservative activist following his death, while promising government investigation of liberal groups they say backed such rhetoric.
As Vice President Vance guest-hosted Mr. Kirk鈥檚 podcast Monday, he and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller pledged to use the federal government to investigate liberal organizations that they painted as seedbeds of violence.
Why We Wrote This
Republicans have long railed against 鈥渃ancel culture鈥� and blamed the left for seeking to curb free speech. Now, they are catching criticism on the same grounds in the wake of Charlie Kirk鈥檚 assassination 鈥� and potentially going further by invoking the power of government to target perceived offenders.
鈥淚t is a vast domestic terror movement. With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government, to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people. It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie鈥檚 name,鈥� Mr. Miller said.
It is unclear whether any actions have yet been taken against specific liberal groups 鈥� Mr. Vance said it would take some time. But the vice president pledged that the administration 鈥渨ill explore every option to bring real unity to our country and stop those who would kill their fellow Americans because they don鈥檛 like what they say.鈥�
In the meantime: 鈥淚f you see someone celebrating Charlie鈥檚 murder, call them out,鈥� he said, adding, 鈥淐all their employer.鈥�
In the wake of Mr. Kirk鈥檚 assassination, a wave of people has been fired for posting critical or disparaging comments about Mr. Kirk, a deeply controversial figure.
Pentagon leadership has ordered staff to identify service members who mocked Mr. Kirk鈥檚 assassination for discipline, including firing. Virginia鈥檚 Republican superintendent of public instruction that teachers who made controversial comments about the killing should have their teaching licenses revoked. , , and have been fired or forced to resign for their social media posts. So have numerous private sector employees from across the country.
鈥淲e are tracking all these very closely 鈥� and will address, immediately. Completely unacceptable,鈥� Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week, after his spokesperson said, 鈥淚t is unacceptable for military personnel and Department of War civilians to celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American.鈥�
A fundamental American right
The First Amendment specifically and the broader concept of freedom of speech are cherished in the United States 鈥� but are a lot harder to cherish in practice.
鈥淭he First Amendment is really hard for everyone the first few times they encounter it. Everyone likes it on paper. Everyone struggles with it in practice. It鈥檚 much tougher when the speech you have to tolerate is something you really, really dislike,鈥� says Adam Goldstein, a vice president at the nonpartisan Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
The questions around free speech are rising as 22-year-old Utah resident Tyler Robinson was arraigned Tuesday on aggravated murder charges for Mr. Kirk鈥檚 killing. Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray said Mr. Robinson鈥檚 mother told investigators that their son had turned left politically in the past year, and that he told his roommate, 鈥淚 had enough of [Mr. Kirk鈥檚] hatred. Some hate can鈥檛 be negotiated out.鈥�
Nearly two dozen Republican members of Congress have to investigate 鈥渢he money, influence, and power behind the radical left鈥檚 assault on America and the rule of law鈥� in the wake of Mr. Kirk鈥檚 death. Republican lawmakers have also in recent days introduced a to withhold federal funds from entities employing individuals who condone political violence and have called on social media companies to institute lifetime bans on users who posted anti-Kirk sentiments after his death. House Republicans are also Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and remove her from her committees for criticizing Mr. Kirk鈥檚 rhetoric in the immediate aftermath of his death.
鈥淭heir businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked [out] from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked. I鈥檓 basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk鈥檚 assassination,鈥� posted Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins, a Republican who chairs the House Oversight Committee鈥檚 subcommittee that focuses on federal law enforcement agencies.
鈥淧olitical speech is protected by the First Amendment, even when it deeply offends. For that reason, it is generally unconstitutional for public employers to fire employees for their political views, and it is generally unconstitutional for the government to coerce private employers into censoring speech on its behalf,鈥� says Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淭he murder of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy. Government officials should not exploit that tragedy, however, to censor political speech they don鈥檛 like.鈥�
Mr. Abdo says the Supreme Court has found that government officials can call for people to be fired 鈥� but that it becomes a First Amendment violation if it 鈥渞eaches the point of coercion.鈥� That鈥檚 the line the court used when a r from Republican state attorneys general that claimed the Biden administration had unlawfully coerced social media companies to remove contentious content.
The First Amendment protects Americans from their government. It offers no shield from people criticizing their speech or seeking for them to be fired. That鈥檚 always been a part of American history. But the advent of social media has made controversial remarks easier to find and easier to target, inflaming society at crucial moments and creating a cancel culture that has been used across the political spectrum in recent years. Twitter famously banned Mr. Trump from the platform two days after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, citing 鈥渢he risk of further incitement of violence鈥� (he has since been reinstated).
Mr. Goldstein says that what鈥檚 happening now is going further than recent cancel culture fights, however. 鈥淲hen you have government officials and people who are government advisers who are engaging in cancel culture 鈥� that is not just cancel culture, that鈥檚 also censorship,鈥� he says.
Recent events feel 鈥渓ike the road to McCarthyism,鈥� Mr. Goldstein says, referring to the Red Scare of the 1950s, when both the government and private industry cracked down on, fired, and blacklisted people suspected of harboring communist views.
Robert Post, a First Amendment expert at Yale Law School and former dean of the school, sees parallels with an earlier period.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 about cancel culture. Cancel culture is about private people saying what they will tolerate from other private people. This is about the use of the state to crush opposition. It鈥檚 a totally different thing,鈥� he says. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 what鈥檚 at stake now. And we have never seen anything like this [in the U.S.] since the First World War.鈥�
During World War I, the federal government criminalized anti-war speech and criticism of the government with the Sedition and Espionage acts, shut down dozens of publications and newspapers it deemed too critical by barring their distribution through the postal service, and jailed over 1,000 people for more than a year solely for things they wrote or said.
Mr. Post cites the Trump administration鈥檚 crackdown on universities and law firms as other examples of using the power of government to try to silence critics.
鈥淐ompletely alien to our culture and our values鈥�
Mr. Trump and many of his conservative supporters have long railed against cancel culture. In a July 4, 2020, speech, the president defined it as 鈥渄riving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees.鈥�
鈥淭his is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America,鈥� he .
As recently as February, Mr. Vance fought to have the Trump administration rehire Marko Elez, a DOGE employee who had after social media posts that many regarded as racist came to light.
鈥淚 obviously disagree with some of Elez鈥檚 posts, but I don鈥檛 think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid鈥檚 life,鈥� Mr. Vance on the social platform X.
鈥淩acist trolls on the internet, while offensive, don鈥檛 threaten my kids. You know what does? A culture that denies grace to people who make mistakes,鈥� he .
But this week, a strikingly different view was put forward by Mr. Trump鈥檚 attorney general, Pam Bondi.
鈥淭here鈥檚 free speech and then there鈥檚 hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society鈥� for hate speech, Ms. Bondi said on an episode of the 鈥淜atie Miller Pod鈥� on Monday evening. 鈥淲e will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.鈥�
On Fox News, Ms. Bondi threatened legal action against businesses that refused to provide services to people commemorating Mr. Kirk.
鈥淚f you want to go and print posters with Charlie鈥檚 picture for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for [refusing to do] that. We have right now our civil rights unit looking at that,鈥� .
That claim seems to fly in the face of years of jurisprudence, including a recent Supreme Court case that found a baker could refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Ms. Bondi鈥檚 comments were a bridge too far for many conservatives.
鈥淭he First Amendment absolutely protects speech,鈥� Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz at a Politico event. 鈥淚t absolutely protects hate speech. It protects vile speech. It protects horrible speech. What does that mean? It means you cannot be prosecuted for speech, even if it is evil and bigoted and wrong.鈥�
Mr. Cruz said, however, that 鈥渘aming and shaming鈥� was appropriate. 鈥淲e鈥檝e seen teachers in high schools and elementary schools posting online, celebrating. We鈥檝e seen university professors posting. In my view, they should absolutely face the consequences for celebrating murder,鈥� he said.
Ms. Bondi later appeared to be trying to walk back some of those remarks, clarifying on X, 鈥淗ate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment.鈥�
On Tuesday, President Trump filed a $15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times, claiming that articles that had questioned his proclamations of success were defamatory, libelous, and 鈥渟pecifically designed to try and damage President Trump鈥檚 business, personal and political reputation.鈥� The suit is the latest in a series of aggressive court actions against media organizations, including CBS News鈥� 鈥�60 Minutes,鈥� which agreed to a $16 million settlement, and ABC News, which also agreed to a $16 million settlement. The president is also suing The Wall Street Journal for an article stating that he鈥檇 sent a vulgar drawing and note to financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for his birthday in 2003.
New York Times publisher AG Sulzberger responded in a that the paper is confident in its reporting and the First Amendment protections behind it, but warned that 鈥渆veryone, regardless of their politics, should be troubled by the growing anti-press campaign led by President Trump and his administration, which challenges not just journalists but our right to ask questions on behalf of the American people.鈥�
When asked about Attorney General Bondi鈥檚 hate speech comments by ABC News鈥� Jonathan Karl, President Trump replied, 鈥淵our company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech, so maybe they鈥檒l have to go after you.鈥�
Mr. Kirk himself may have disagreed with Ms. Bondi鈥檚 viewpoint.
鈥淗ate speech does not exist legally in America. There鈥檚 ugly speech. There鈥檚 gross speech. There鈥檚 evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free,鈥� Mr. Kirk in May 2024.
Staff writers Caitlin Babcock and Patrik Jonsson contributed reporting to this story.
