The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a Utah university event has ignited a fierce national debate over free speech, with the very administration he championed now leading a crackdown on comments celebrating his death.
Kirk, a stalwart proponent of the First Amendment, frequently argued that all speech, no matter how offensive, was constitutionally protected. “Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” he wrote last year. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.”
Yet, in the week since his death, the Trump administration and its allies have vowed to punish those who mock or celebrate the killing. Pentagon officials have promised to “address” federal employees who engage in such rhetoric, and the State Department announced it would revoke the visas of non-citizens who post celebratory comments. Vice President JD Vance, while guest-hosting Kirk’s podcast, encouraged listeners to contact the employers of anyone “celebrating Charlie’s murder.”
The administration’s stance was sharpened by Attorney General Pam Bondi, who stated, “There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech. We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” Although she later clarified she was referring to speech that “crosses the line into threats of violence,” her initial comments drew alarm. When asked about Bondi’s remarks, President Trump told a reporter, “We’ll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly; it’s hate.”
The controversy escalated when ABC announced it would “indefinitely” preempt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” The move followed a call from FCC Chair Brendan Carr for the network to “take action” over the comedian’s suggestion that Kirk’s alleged killer was a Trump supporter. Major station owners Nexstar and Sinclair had already pulled the show before ABC’s decision. FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat, condemned the pressure as a “dangerous new precedent,” stating, “This administration is increasingly using the weight of government power to suppress lawful expression… because it challenges those in power.”
Legal experts caution that the government’s position clashes with established First Amendment law, which protects most forms of hateful speech barring narrow exceptions like direct threats and incitement. Genevieve Lakier, a University of Chicago law professor, noted that courts have avoided defining “hate speech” because “the whole point is there’s no neutral definition.” Adam Goldstein of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression called Bondi’s initial statement “the kind of thing that would get you a bad grade in your constitutional law class.”
While the First Amendment restricts government action, private companies are generally free to fire employees for their speech. This has led to calls, including from Vice President Vance, for the public to pressure employers. However, legal scholars warn of “jawboning,” where government officials illegally coerce private companies into taking action. A Transportation Secretary’s tweet praising airlines for suspending employees and urging them to be fired could be seen as coercive, given his regulatory power over the industry.
The rules for public sector employees are more complex. Government workers have some First Amendment rights, particularly for off-duty speech on matters of public concern. However, these rights can be restricted if the speech disrupts the effective delivery of public services. Following the assassination, a Secret Service agent was placed on leave, military officers have been suspended pending investigations, and teachers in several states face disciplinary action for their online comments. Experts note that each case is unique, and the military is permitted to enforce stricter limitations on speech to maintain discipline and unit cohesion.
First Amendment advocates express concern over the broad nature of the backlash. “This is not being limited to people saying, ‘I’m glad Charlie Kirk is dead,'” said Jenin Younes, a First Amendment attorney. “It’s being applied to people who are just saying they didn’t like Charlie Kirk.”
Goldstein noted the profound irony of the situation, given Kirk’s own legacy. “What a weird way to react in memory of Charlie Kirk, who was known for listening to people and disagreeing with them, and moving on.”
Source link
