Below is my column that ran earlier on Fox.com on the calls for the termination of academics and others who have criticized Charlie Kirk or expressed satisfaction with his murder. Unfortunately, such hateful remarks are nothing new in academia. However, this is not about them. It is about us, and more importantly, it is about Charlie and what he fought for his entire life. We cannot allow our anger or sorrow to lead us into becoming the very people that Charlie denounced in his life. If you “Stand with Charlie,” you stand with free speech.
Here is the column:
“Stand with Charlie!” That message spontaneously appeared throughout the world after the unspeakable violent attack by an extremist. No, it was not the response to the murder of Charlie Kirk this week. It was ten years ago with the killing of staff at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. World leaders, including the French, German, and Turkish presidents, joined a march for free speech despite their own speech crackdowns, including prior targeting of the magazine and the victims.
The chief editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, had refused to be silenced by the French government and declared, “I would rather die standing than live on my knees.” He was the first person the gunmen asked for in their attack on the office, and he was one of the first to be killed.
At the time, I wrote about the breathtaking hypocrisy and noted that one of the few surviving editors of the magazine refused to join the march with those who relentlessly pursued them with criminal investigation. After the march, France, Germany, and other Western governments expanded their censorship laws and the prosecution of viewpoints deemed inflammatory or hateful.
In the ultimate dishonoring of the memory of the Charlie Hebdo staff, the French officials then proceeded to use their own murders to justify increasing prosecution of speech
The killing of Charlie Kirk in the United States ten years later is clearly different in one critical respect. There will be no “I am Charlie” campaign on the left. Some on the left have celebrated the killing while others, mouthing regret, attacked Kirk and suggested that he brought this upon himself.
That is hardly a surprise. Kirk spent his tragically short life exposing the hypocrisy and intolerance of the left, particularly in higher education. They hated him for it. Universities and colleges have long been bastions of the left with the purging of most conservative or Republican faculty from most departments and the maintenance of an academic echo chamber in classrooms.
Kirk challenged all that. He drove many mad by inviting them to debate issues. The response was often violence, including the trashing of tables of his group, Turning Point USA. Ultimately, he was killed for insisting on being heard.
However, we are facing the same danger of self-consuming hypocrisy — ten years after that other Charlie shooting. Some on the right are calling for people who denounce Kirk or celebrate his death to be fired. That ranges from professors to public employees.
I knew Charlie. While I cannot call myself a close friend, we spoke about the lack of free speech on our campuses and the efforts to cancel or fire those with opposing views. More than anyone today, Kirk brilliantly exposed that hypocrisy by putting himself and his group in harm’s way.
The way to honor Charlie Kirk’s life and legacy is not with hypocrisy and intolerance. That is what he died fighting against.
To fire people on campuses for speaking out against Charlie Kirk would make an utter mockery of his work and his death. It would be like banning LGBTQ groups in response to the assassination of Harvey Milk in 1978.
Charlie Kirk wanted unfettered debate. He wanted people to be able to express themselves regardless of how the majority felt about their views. He was the victim, not the advocate, of cancel campaigns.
There are instances where hateful views may raise grounds for termination. A secret service agent is under investigation after dismissing the assassination. Given the need to protect conservative as well as liberal figures (including those in the current administration), the bias in the postings can raise legitimate grounds for inquiry.
Likewise, those who use their official, academic, or corporate positions to espouse hateful messages risk termination.
However, many of these individuals were speaking as individuals outside of their positions, and their hateful commentary is not necessarily compromising or conflicting with their positions.
Hate speech in the United States is protected speech. The crackdown on speech deemed hateful, inflammatory, or intolerant has been the signature of the left, the very thing that Charlie campaigned against.
It is never easy to show restraint when you are angry or grieving. After all, many of those objecting to these cases today were silent or supported crackdowns on conservatives for years on and off campuses. They lack any self-awareness or shame in demanding protections that they rarely extend to others with opposing views. That is the value of an age of rage. It gives you license to silence and attack others for their views while insisting that you are the real victim.
However, we cannot become those we have long fought against in the free speech community. More importantly, we cannot become those whom Charlie fought against up to the very moment of his murder. We honor his legacy by protecting the thing that Charlie cherished the most. We need to “Stand with Charlie” and support free speech.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
I was torn about this. No longer, Jonathan Turley just convinced me. Hate speech is protected speech. Unless someone is calling for the actual murder of someone, or celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk in the classroom (like an elementary school teacher in Canada did) or in the exam room or are in the secret service, they should not be fired. I’d much rather have it out in the open anyway.
it is VERY CLEAR Democrats, globalists, labour, etc want to destroy western society
pro illegals
release violent criminals to repeat crimes
pro drugs
pro destructive debt!
The Democrat Party needs to be Destroyed!
Spoken like a true fascist.
I’ll bet there’s not a commenter here under 70.
I am well under 70 years of age.
I’m not. LOL
What like 69.875?
@Timley – True, their the mainstay of good common sense, lived through the “Cold War”, Korean War, went gladly when called to Vietnam, who’s kids are still MIA’s, who’ve fought and died defending free speech and hope to see all Americans enjoy the freedoms of the constitution. Don’t confuse freedom of speech with suppression of free speech. What’s been going on is suppression of free speech by the left (democrats). Your probably correct over 70, good solid Americans. May I suggest respectfully you kiss their collective…..
@S. Timley
Not by a longshot, and that should cause some alertness: I have decades of voting remaining, and I research and vote for bloody everything. There are many just like me. You seem to be confusing us with the ‘No Kings’ crowd.
Timley, I think we should remember that all are born with a degree of intelligence and gain knowledge through life, but wisdom comes to a select few who are generally older.
The free speech of celebrating murder and the spread of false information about what the victim said while alive is abhorrent. But free speech should be universal. This debate about firings due to speech is not the same. These people are employed and the employer has the right to dismiss them.
Well, if that is the goal, then the first move by congress is to withdraw that erroneous sop to the minority grievance industry ( all hate speech legislation) and return us to actual free speech. If some part of our government thinks that it is OK to fetter some speech then they make a mockery out of the 1st amendment.
Just like a HATE crime… If you harm someone. I really don’t think you like that person.
I always thought that was a bad law.
I understand the Professor’s point and it is well written and spreads a note of caution to many of us who feel outrage and anger at this most recent atrocity. Yes, we do not wish to become that which attacks us all the time with what seems like impunity. I can sit and listen, quietly, without interrupting, to people who speak nothing but trash but I will be heard eventually.
That simply means to be forceful in speaking and do not fear to be loud, if you have to be.
A parade ground voice is a useful attribute. But know your facts and always listen because that is when you can really learn something.
I can guarantee you will learn little to nothing when you are speaking. That is just the way most of our minds work. You open your mouth and your hearing disappears. Unless you read lips your ability to input information is severely handicapped. Your eyes will see but it is not the same as a spoken idea or word.
“A picture is worth a thousand words”. Well it can be but often it does not. A picture, video, or photo is basically what someone else wants you to see. A conversation is where a thought, an idea, a question is born and then discussed and ruminated over, pros and cons enumerated and verified and so on and then something real and powerful can take root and change people’s lives.
Mr Kirk was shot not because he showed pretty pictures and showed a video but because he had listened and then spoke and people listened because what he said had validity and purpose and meaning.
Too many people talk and very few really listen and I suppose that is why we have so many ignorant people.
Celebrating the assassination of people who hold ideas with which you disagree and particularly one who engaged in civil discourse on the issues is not “ the marketplace of ideas “ that we promote by our commitment to freedom of speech. It’s the exact opposite. I would not support people being fired for expressing values and policies different from mine. But celebrating murder? Damn right I support those firings.
Does anyone really believe that literally “turning the other cheek” or be a “goody two shoes” with these people will bring about change? I’m not against their ability to speak freely, I’m against their ideology, their attempts at indoctrination, their attempts to destabilize our nation, the political corruption they’ve grown in DC. We all saw the democrats reaction to a moment of silence for CK, the comments from the representative who married her brother to gain entry to the US, the comments from the representative who claims she’s an American Indian. No, I don’t agree with JT this morning and suggest we all remain skeptical of any change soon.
The majority of the hateful wingnut comments from the left seem to have been given on personal social media accounts. IMO that should be protected free speech in almost every case, except for the exceptions JT mentioned above ⬆️. Remember it’s the speech we don’t agree, with and find objectionable, that needs protection. Protecting speech that we agree with is the easy part, the hard part is protecting the speech we don’t agree with, and it’s the heart of our first amendment. I think these extreme wind not comments are pure hate, but I think these Wing nuts have the right to spew that hate on their personal social media accounts and almost every case.
Omar came in as a refugee at 8 yrs old and became a citizen at 17. She married her brother in a “religious” ceremony when she was an adult. It literally had nothing to do with her becoming a citizen. Facts matter.
Congress had a moment of silence to honor Charlie. After the time was over Rep Boebert said she wanted everyone to pray aloud for CK. That’s when the Dems objected. Omar came to the US as an 8 yr old refugee and became a citizen at 17. Her marriage to her brother in a religious ceremony literally had nothing to do with her citizenship or immigrating to the US. Facts matter.
I fully agree with your version of “Free Speech”. That said, let me say that Public Employees in particular, Public School Employees, Public Safety Employees, Judicial Branch Employees Healthcare Employees that are required to interact with all Americans do not have the right to remain employed in those capacities if the clearly have an animus toward any segment of our Countymen. That animus includes endorsing or even advocating for the murder of other Americans based solely on values and thoughts. Their termination from such employment is mandated by their Oath of Office. I am old enough to remember the scream for termination, imprisonment and even killing of those that opposed the COVID narrative………….
@Bcofdt13
Those are my thoughts, too. Whether people like it or not, contracts are contracts, and actions have consequences. This is different from being cancelled entirely, physically attacked, or murdered, and it’s absurd to have to say it.
Well said professor! I commented yesterday how we need to continue Kirk’s message and not to lower ourselves to the leftists level. I love the fact so many like minded people from around the world held vigils for Charlie Kirk.
@Upstate
It’s certainly been something to see, and it’s encouraging. I can’t thank the Professor and similar enough for their clarity.
I don’t disagree for universities, but some of these people were teaching children, and that is a different scenario altogether. Children emulate the adults in their lives, and hate of any kind has no place in their classrooms. They are not developed enough to grasp context that is simply beyond their scope of experience, they do not possess the faculty for adult debate regarding adult concepts or subjects, be it regarding sexuality, politics, or anything else. Nuance is annoying at times, but it is necessary.
At the university level and beyond though, absolutely. Open discourse should be just that – open.
I’m pretty sure that Professor Turley is putting forth the position that University professors and K-12 teachers have the right to say anything on THEIR own private, personal, social media accounts, not in the classroom, but on their personal social media accounts. The classroom is a different ball game, if they start spewing this garbage in the classroom, as part of their curriculum, forcing their views on students they should be fired, because it certainly is not part of academia. That’s what I think the professor is saying.
@Stitch
Yes, but that is not what is happening in some cases, and that needs to be addressed as well. Again, nuance is annoying, but that’s what law and debate are for. 🤷🏽♂️Children do not need to see the grownup they spend most days with celebrating murder, ANY murder, in the classroom. And indeed, contractually, you do willingly relinquish your personal social media etc. voice in the legally binding terms of some jobs. Next time read the fine print?
Is it wrong to attack people just because of what they stand for and represent?
When a federal, state, or local government employee engages in hate speech, protected if spoken by non-government workers, it calls into question the competence of that employee at rendering service on behalf of the public, and it may lead to the public’s questioning of the loyalty and competence of that unit of government. For those reasons, I incline toward discipline of such an employee, up to and including termination of employment status.
Very nice, Professor. Charlie obviously believed in an afterlife. I am not sure if in his version of an afterlife one is following current events on Earth, but if he is, that is the message I believe he would like to be remembered for. I don’t believe in an afterlife, but I believe in that message.
So Mr Turley, if a teacher for one of your kids, no matter what age, shows the class a video of the murder and then goes into a rant about how this was justified and a good thing. This teacher is just exercising free speech and to accept it, is that what you’re telling us?
A lot to unpack there.
So the teacher, who is charged with the responsibility of providing educational leadership and tutoring to “all” students equally and without malice against any one of them, earning their salary from either the parents in private schools, or the taxpayer at public schools, is then bound by contractual requirements which may differ given the circumstance of say a public or private school. In either case, there are legal requirements to ensure they are providing equal and fair education to all their students and adhering to a slew of laws against racism, unsafe or unhealthy conditions (physical or mental), and on and on.
Most such laws having been enacted by the left with bipartisan support. In the example you gave, the teacher could be held responsible by parents in a lawsuit for causing trauma, instilling hatred and violence, etc., which if you’ve followed the news in the last few days, your example when demonstrated in the real world, has resulted in a good many employee’s being summarily terminated, including doctors and health care staffers, to private business employees and managers, and teachers, that did exactly what you gave as a suggestion.
It is mostly the left who declared words to be violence. If that be so, then in your example, the teacher would be committing violence against the students.
If said teacher presumes the right to insert their own opinion on any subject which could represent violent speech by an attorney for instance, resulting in severe trauma to any individual student whatever the subject, then the teacher has failed in his/her job and violated most likely their employee/employer relationship agreement, and a parent with a good attorney might be able to get them fired, sue them for damages, or sue the school, business, or institution for damages. Depends on a myriad of circumstances and variables.
Freedom of speech comes with requirements and responsibilities. Some examples one could think of might not involve the law, but may well involve the loss of employment for the individual, and or a lawsuit against them or most likely, their employer. Just yelling fire in a movie theater, which someone might say is free speech, can result in criminal charges depending on what transpires afterwards, and the circumstance of why the person yelled fire. Speech, whether legal or not, comes with consequences, as many now unemployed for their outbursts are finding out.
————————
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
Dollar: You seriously mischaracterize Turley’s article. He implies nothing close to your example. He notes that some in special positions of trust reasonably risk losing employment for teaching that murder is good. You need to re-read the article.
That’s not what Turley stated, not even close. HOW did you get that Krazy Extremist view from this column?
I agree- it does go both ways. I would argue it’s BECAUSE if the intolerance of professors, TA’s and HS teachers this hatred has been allowed to incubate.
How do we demand intellectual diversity on campuses which, I would argue, is the only type if diversity that matters.
Professor Turley, Your position is unpopular, but correct. Over the past few days, I’ve seen a number of politicians calling for retaliation against the leftists who have celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination. It makes them look ignorant and hypocritical.
Jeff: Agree about being careful here. The problem really arises when those who are in a special position of trust – such as professors who can influence students – start celebrating murder. If that school gets federal money, then that professor should be gone. Note: free speech is not absolute; it is qualified and has its consequences.
Jeff l
Conservative or otherwise you are free to retaliate
You are not free to use force or government to do so
You may boycott companies
You may fire pro assassins toon left wing nuts
You may not use government to censor
You may not use government to investigate speech or conduct that is not a crime
Thank you for reminding those of us that are open minded not to slip into the abyss of hypocrisy. We are the ones that must continue the push for open mindedness to keep this country alive.
“It is never easy to show restraint when you are angry …” Sums up the people who show up here.
Like who?
George… All we see from you is hate.
Did the leaders of the Russian terrorist state mourn the death of Charlie Kirk?
China AND Russia are complicit in active direct support of leftists bent on destroying traditional western Christian societal morals and propagandizing socialist policys. This is a well known fact.
and the left go right along…KNOWING they are killing people
releasing criminals
importing illegals
pushing drug
fomenting wars
creating crushing DEBT!
Nothing in the news about anything the Russian’s have said. It was noted that the leftists in the EU Parliament would NOT allow a moment of silence for Charlie Kirk at the request of some members.
Patriots and conservatives demanded a minute of silence in the European Parliament today for Charlie Kirk.
As it was expected that the socialist chair wouldn’t allow it, @weimers parliamentarian said he’ll yield his time for silence.
The socialist chair deliberately started… pic.twitter.com/kfyyDhytOX
— András LÁSZLÓ MEP 🇭🇺 (@laszloan) September 11, 2025
How does holding a minute of silence for George Floyd but denying one for Charlie Kirk make sense? pic.twitter.com/0CMFaWw2fv
— Charlie Weimers MEP 🇸🇪 (@weimers) September 11, 2025
As conservatives, we requested a minute of silence in the European Parliament to honor Charlie Kirk. The left, calling themselves democrats, naturally refused. They are the same everywhere… Even in the face of death, they are incapable of showing human compassion. Therefore, I will organize an exhibition in the European Parliament commemorating Charlie Kirk. His legacy will bear fruit.”
— Polish MEP Dominik Tarczyński
Who cares.