The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a tragedy, a young life snuffed out by a deranged shooter. It was yet another example of political violence that is anathema to what we profess to be as a country, a place that values and protects free speech and different ideas.
We are rightly concerned about the safety of our political leaders and public figures, but we should also be worried about how the Kirk murder is serving as a mechanism for those in leadership positions who want to use the tragedy to curtail or punish speech.
The Associated Press reported Wednesday, “Without establishing any link to last week’s shooting, the Republican president and members of his administration have discussed classifying some groups as domestic terrorists, ordering racketeering investigations and revoking tax-exempt status for progressive nonprofits.”
President Trump has repeatedly cast broadside blame on “the left” for Kirk’s murder while conveniently ignoring inflammatory rhetoric on the right as well as his own incendiary language. After all, he was the primary provocateur of the January 6th insurrection where five people died and 174 police officers were injured.
Attorney General Pam Bondi picked up the baton earlier this week when she said on a podcast that individuals engaged in “hate speech” would be prosecuted. “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech,” Bondi said on The Katie Miller Podcast, adding that the Justice Department is “targeting anyone with hate speech.”
Either the top law enforcement officer in the country does not understand the First Amendment or she chose to ignore it. She quickly tried to correct herself after blowback from multiple groups on the right and left, including conservative pundits.
Stephen Miller, the influential White House Deputy Chief of Staff, was right there with Bondi. “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, eliminate and destroy this network [emphasis added] and make America safe again for the American people,” Miller said.
What network? Miller and others on the far right are attempting, without specific evidence, to suggest that Kirk’s killer was part of some vast left-wing conspiracy. Vice President J.D. Vance has also piled on by falsely suggesting that political violence is more common on the left than on the right. In fact, a study has found that the opposite is true.*
And then Wednesday ABC, under pressure from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show after complaints from conservatives that he mischaracterized the motivation of the man who shot Kirk.
The threat of a crackdown on speech from members of the Trump administration is a textbook trademark of authoritarian governments that use their power to quell dissent. It is undemocratic and an assault on the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted the First Amendment broadly. Speech, particularly unpopular speech, including so-called “hate speech,” is sheltered from government interference.
In the landmark case of Whitney v. California, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that the Founding Fathers believed free speech was integral to liberty. “They believed that freedom to think as you will and speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile.”
There are exceptions to free speech, but they are rare. For example, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court found that the government can prohibit speech if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and if it is “likely to incite or produce such action.” But generally speaking, government cannot punish someone for what they say or think.
(It is important to note here that the First Amendment does not apply to private employers and their employees. Yes, someone in the private sector can be fired for what they say.)
Notably, the late Charlie Kirk understood the First Amendment, and he knew that his often provocative speech was protected from government interference or prosecution. That is a lesson that is lost on an administration that wants to punish people for what they think and say.
*(That information comes from a Cato Institute study.)