The Assassination Of Charlie Kirk And Free Speech

Bonisiwe Shabane

-Nov 18, 2025, 8:07 PM

the assassination of charlie kirk and free speech

Charlie Kirk’s killing highlights the dangerous escalation from protest and de-platforming to silencing speech through violence. Charlie Kirk shooting - KSL News Utah - Wikimedia Commons Charlie Kirk’s killing highlights the dangerous escalation from protest and de-platforming to silencing speech through violence. I knew Charlie Kirk when he was taking off in national prominence. We spent several long weekends together in those years. Plus, we ran into each other at political events and had phone conversations.

Charlie once spoke at one of his “prove me wrong” events sponsored by Stanford College Republicans when I was the group’s faculty adviser. Some of his Turning Point USA signs at the event were: “Taxation Is Theft” and “Affirmative Action Is Racist.” The conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10, 2025, has started a fierce debate about the principles and limits of freedom of speech in America. Kirk, who was the founder of the organization Turning Point USA, was a big advocate of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Kirk often tweeted on X, a social media platform, that even “ugly,” “gross,” and “evil” speech is protected by the First Amendment. Kirk’s death, however, did not lead to a unified defense of freedom of speech.

Rather, it has exposed deep ideological divisions and triggered a wave of reactions that threaten to undermine the very principles Kirk once fiercely advocated for. In the days after Kirk’s assassination, some individuals made offensive comments or praised his killing online. This led to private companies, including airlines, universities, and media organizations, firing or suspending employees for their posts about Kirk’s assassination. Some of the private sector firings included a Phoenix sports reporter who was terminated after calling Kirk a “bigot,” and MSNBC, a cable channel, terminated a commentator for suggesting “Kirk’s rhetoric had contributed to... Although no violation of freedom of speech occurred, these incidents raise broader questions about the scope of free speech in the workplace. The situation became more concerning when government officials actively encouraged these firings.

One of the encouragements came from the Vice President, JD Vance, who urged listeners of Kirk’s podcast to “call their employer” if they saw anyone celebrating Kirk’s assassination. Sean Duffy, the Transportation Secretary, publicly pressured airlines to not just suspend but fire employees who had posted offensive posts. Attorney General Pam Bondi initially mentioned that the government would “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech,” a remark that went against the Supreme Court’s repeated rulings... After her initial statement, she tweeted on X that “hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected.” One prominent example of government pressure involved comedian Jimmy Kimmel, who appears on Jimmy Kimmel Live! on the ABC network.

Kimmel, on his show, suggested that MAGA figures were cynically spinning Charlie Kirk’s murder for political gain and criticized President Trump’s response to Kirk’s death. After Kimmel’s comments, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr suggested that ABC could face regulatory action. He urged that the network should take action against Kimmel. Soon after, ABC announced that it would suspend airing Jimmy Kimmel Live! indefinitely. The decision drew widespread criticism as an instance of “jawboning,” in which the government leverages its influence to pressure private entities into suppressing speech.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the commission’s sole Democrat, condemned the move as a “dangerous new precedent” and argued that the government was suppressing lawful expression merely because it “reflects views they oppose.” Legal experts across the political spectrum stress that the First Amendment protects even offensive and hateful speech. Republican Senator Ted Cruz stated, “The First Amendment absolutely protects speech… It absolutely protects hate speech. It protects vile speech. It protects horrible speech.” This view was echoed by Eugene Volokh, a leading First Amendment scholar and UCLA law professor, who observed that although celebrating a death may be in poor taste, it is... Some prominent conservatives, including Matt Walsh, expressed frustration by calling for Pam Bondi’s removal after she claimed that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the First Amendment rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government. Our dedicated professional staff works tirelessly to protect political speech under the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Recent annual reports, audited financial statements, and IRS Form 990s Recent annual reports, audited financial statements, and IRS Form 990s The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a shocking and horrifying reminder of what’s at stake when violence is perceived as a valid response to speech. However strongly one may disagree with Mr.

Kirk’s views, no disagreement can ever justify silencing a voice through force or other unlawful means. Charlie Kirk was a national conservative. I am a freedom conservative. While both right-wing activists, we nevertheless shared deep disagreements over the vision and direction for the conservative movement and the Republican Party. But such cursory distractions no longer matter. In the wake of the vicious evil of an assassin’s bullet at my own home campus of Utah Valley University, Charlie Kirk stopped being my political opponent.

He became a martyr. And that’s how I will choose to remember him. But a martyr for what? Charlie Kirk was an intensely active political figure with opinions on virtually every issue. For which of these opinions was he so wrongly slain? Since the capture of Charlie’s assassin, we’ve begun learning about some of the political motivations for this tragic instance of violence.

But we don’t need to allow the radicalized vision of the perpetrator to dictate how we remember Charlie Kirk. Nor do we need to agree with everything Charlie Kirk said or did to honor him, because he stood for some things which we can all agree on, and the location and manner of... Charlie’s political journey began in 2012 with an essay in Breitbart News about the political bias he observed from his teachers as a high school student. He utilized the tremendous exposure his essay gave him to found Turning Point USA that same year. The organization under his leadership focused heavily on advocating for free speech on campus. Even before the rise of Donald Trump in 2016, Charlie Kirk had already expanded his effort to the point that most major universities and many, many others all had a Turning Point club.

On September 10th, Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated by a gunman while answering student questions at Utah Valley University. The shocking violence occurred during an outdoor event that lacked standard security measures, including drone monitoring of rooftops and coordination with local law enforcement according to an AP review. Thousands of supporters gathered at Utah State University in Logan on Tuesday to honor Kirk’s memory, with tight security measures including metal detectors, drone surveillance, and a heavy law enforcement presence. The event featured prominent conservative figures including Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Glenn Beck, and political leaders like Utah Governor Spencer Cox, Arizona Representative Andy Biggs, and former Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz. Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, has pledged to continue the organization’s work, stating they have “blueprints” and “marching orders” to carry on her husband’s mission. The assassination has galvanized conservative movements nationwide, with Turning Point USA receiving tens of thousands of requests to create new chapters in high schools and colleges.

As someone deeply committed to democratic principles and free speech, I find the assassination of Charlie Kirk absolutely devastating and fundamentally antithetical to American values. Regardless of political affiliation, the violent silencing of any voice represents an attack on the very foundations of our democracy. The fact that this tragedy occurred during a campus event - traditionally a space for open dialogue and intellectual exchange - makes it particularly egregious. While I may not agree with every political viewpoint expressed by Turning Point USA, I will always defend the right to express those views peacefully and without fear of violence. The heavy security required for subsequent events speaks volumes about how threatened our civic discourse has become, and serves as a sobering reminder that we must recommit to civil disagreement. The blame game that emerged during the memorial event, with speakers attributing the violence to “one side,” only deepens our national divisions when what we desperately need is unity against violence in all forms.

Governor Cox’s point about the dangerous mindset that equates speech with violence is particularly crucial - once we accept that disagreeable speech justifies physical violence, we abandon the very principles that make democracy possible. This tragedy should serve as a wake-up call for all Americans to reject violence unequivocally and recommit to the peaceful exchange of ideas that has always been our nation’s greatest strength. For Americans, the words are practically sacred: the First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. But that right is now the subject of bitter debate, following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. On Thursday, several high-ranking Democrats accused President Donald Trump of waging war on free speech, after he celebrated ABC's suspension of talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, who accused the political right of using Kirk's... The American Civil Liberties Union, a rights advocacy group, accused the Trump administration of operating outside constitutional safeguards to target its opponents, likening it to the Red Scare of the late 1940 and 1950s...

"This is beyond McCarthyism. Trump officials are repeatedly abusing their power to stop ideas they don't like, deciding who can speak, write, and even joke," said Christopher Anders, director of the ACLU's democracy and technology division. So what does the First Amendment say? And why is it up for debate? Ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights comprises the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, protecting the fundamental rights of Americans. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to...

For David Super, a professor at Georgetown University's law school, the amendment is "really how we identify ourselves as a nation." Beyond the varied ethnicities and background of the nation's 340 million people, "we... The First Amendment even protects speech that is "morally repulsive," explained Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles. Volokh however emphasized that the history of the United States has been marked by attempts to stifle dissident voices. I didn't want to believe it, though I've seen the warning signs taking shape the last several years. We've become a society completely intolerant of anyone who thinks differently than we do. Free speech, free thought, free discourse is no longer the norm.

If you don't support (insert cause here) then you must be a (insert negative and pejorative noun here.) There are no more discussions, there are only holier-than-thou lectures, rants, insults and now ... murder. Wednesday's cowardly and cold-blooded assassination of conservative activist and podcaster Charlie Kirk during a speaking event at a college in Utah feels like a crushing watershed moment that I pray we can recover from... Kirk, the CEO and co-founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, was a popular podcaster who often debated students on college campuses. Despite his strong beliefs, Kirk was known for treating those who thought differently with respect.

The Assassination Of Charlie Kirk And Free Speech

People Also Search

Charlie Kirk’s Killing Highlights The Dangerous Escalation From Protest And

Charlie Once Spoke At One Of His “prove Me Wrong”

Rather, It Has Exposed Deep Ideological Divisions And Triggered A

One Of The Encouragements Came From The Vice President, JD

Kimmel, On His Show, Suggested That MAGA Figures Were Cynically