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 agree that people should be free to share their opinions be they reasoned or foul. That said, such revelations are not without consequence. To say you disagreed with Kirk is not the issue; millions did. What bothers me are those who are rejoicing at his death which, I admit, is also protected free speech. That said, as an employer, I don’t have to keep a vile person on my staff. As a parent, do I want my children instructed by a teacher who pushes hatred of those with a differing opinion? No. Just like I would not want a virulent anti-Semite teaching my kids about the Holocaust, I don’t want them taught ‘tolerance’ by someone who celebrates the death of someone who’s whole life was about free speech and open dialogue. These people are showing us who they really are and it is not pretty. We don’t have to employ them.
Who’d want someone with that kind of judgmental and irrational thinking (if one can dignify what goes on in their head with that term) on their payroll?
There are those who are saying that Charlie Kirk was a racist. What is interesting is that these people are not providing any quotes of Charlie making any racist statement. They believe that if they say it or if someone they know has said it that it must be true. Like Charlie said, “prove me wrong”. Short of the provision of such proof one can only come to the conclusion that saying someone is racist without providing examples of his statements is built on a hate formed only by an illusion not on reality. A suppose a shorter explanation is crazy.
Think
The left has no answers, so they throw out the racist talk. Truth or not, just like the NAZI name.
They, the left fail to notice, all this hate is not helping them in the polls.
any white male hetero family man, pro-patriarchy, pro-freedom Constitution-advocating American IS a NAZI Racist as the LEFT IS Totally engaged in this Culture War, not playing pretend like Turley and Academic “Moderates” and Libertarians who urge calm, respect, and reason from “both sides”
TiT it is easy to prove that Kirk was Racist, fascist, Nazi, homophobe, hateful hating hater – all that is necescary is to define racism as disagrement with the left.
I can guarantee you that left wing nuts can provide statements by Kirk that prove their claims – TO THEM.
Just not to rational people who do not think that anything that deviates from their wishes is fascism.
This is for you and Dustoff. 🙂
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G0zQTlYaYAAzUbN?format=jpg&name=large
Ironically, I got that from a black liberal woman as a response to a another user’s post on X. 🙃
I think the key difference is not if we call for people to be fired for celebrating Charlie Kirk being shot, but if we are willing to forgive those who later repent and realize that it was wrong to do so.
The Left offers no ability for people to every change. They pull up 30 year old posts and try to get people fired for them, with no evidence (or even claim) that the person still believes what they posted in High School.
As a Christian, Charlie believed that everyone had made mistakes and Repentance and Forgiveness are possible.
saying that there should be no consequences for calling for, or celebrating murder is not appropriate.
Those days are past. As much as I admire you, Professor, I would have wagered that you would offer just this sort of lame inanity. But your premise is false. We are not striving to silence them, or even directly to get them fired. Rather, we are merely notifying their employers of the kind of people they employ. If they make the decision to terminate them, we’ll and good.
yes, we have an obligation to speak out about their hateful reaction rhetoric and strongly suggest they be sacked for such views– this is Turley’s expected, opportunistic defense of Leftist Intimidation and agitated incitement ramping up “Free Speech” calls for razing America, killing Christians, white men, traditionalists, Republicans, or whoever is targeted as an enemy. This academic, moderate, middle ground position denies the REALITY of WAR. This Culture War is accompanied by Wars of Words, and the supporters of murderer-hitmen plots are to suffer consequences period. Not with Speech Laws (yet), but by other means if possible. Washington and the Founders didn’t passively allow subversive Tories to spread their messaging, Lincoln did not allow Confederate propagandists free reign within the states and territories of the Union, these leaders navigated Domestic Warfare with MANY Vocal Opponents while restraining tyranny but imposing proper consequences upon ACTIVE Domestic Enemies. Turley suggests that Charlie Kirk would be advocating for the masses in their vicious inciteful calls for more Leftist violence were he the one shot down by a plot of Cowards instead. The example of Charlie Hebdo is quite telling in the fact of how the Political Left eagerly exploited it for their OWN Authoritarian gain against their targeted enemies on the traditional right.
Great piece, JT.
Disagree with this: “Some on the right are calling for people who [. . .] celebrate his death to be fired.”
An individual has political right to free speech. And an employer has a right to fire an employee for his noxious ideas.
the left strikes again
________________
Liberal Terrorist Reportedly Assaults, Threatens To Murder South Dakota GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Toby Doeden; Media SILENT
*. I must Google special categories of murder. Is there a category for political assassination? It’s premeditated and may include a conspiracy. Is there anything else?
I was comparing Iryna’s murder. It was not premeditated. The Hebdo murders remain heinous.
^^^*. Yes, aggravated murder. The motive matters.
Free speech is not synonymous with free association. That businesses or universities or schools disassociate (fire, if you prefer) with employees who express views or beliefs antithetical to the business, university, or school seems entirely appropriate and certainly lawful.
^^JT / (“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).”
I understand the Professor’s sentiment, and do not entirely disagree, but would point out that there is a vast difference between “speaking out” or opposing someone’s view in civil discourse as Kirk did in his eloquent public demonstrations of how to debate differences without devolving into primeval “fight or flight” emotional violence, and someone speaking out with intentional violent rhetoric aimed at villainizing, labeling, or targeting, a specific individual (or in some cases a specific group of individuals), with a premeditated agenda to encourage behavior that could or especially in a case which the speaker can be proven to “should” have known, would incite violence. “Premeditated”, as defined and then proved if possible by a prosecutor or suing attorney, (gathering all the evidence back to your third grade teacher who says; he/she was always inclined to be a little bully in class or some such), who then files a lawsuit, or criminal charges, or demands termination and re-compensation for damages before the bench.
Same rationale many state’s gun laws are based upon where leaving a loaded gun unlocked and accessible in your domain, may be perfectly legal in many if not most states, however, if your room-mate, son, daughter, neighbors kid, etc., not engaged in a robbery crime or theft, then finds it and shoots themselves, even if the victim was engaged in a suicide with said gun, you will in most states be held for criminal charges specifying that “you knew, or you should have known”, the weapon was left by you in a dangerous and unsafe location, insert the minutia of legalese words according to your state’s law.
Owning the gun, using the gun, transporting and storing the gun, and ammunition, are all rights covered and guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, however the usage, manner of storage, accessibility of, and overall safety of, the weapon is centered upon you the owner. Failure to abide by those often convoluted and confusing states laws, can and does often result with you that is otherwise on the hook for your action, or inaction in maintaining the safety of the weapon and restricting its accessibility.
Seems to me, the same series of laws similarly applies to one’s tongue in a fashion. The words are then the ammunition.
—————————-
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
Did Charlie Kirk sympathize with terrorists and fascists in Russia who were known to engage in assassination themselves?
^ Chinese Communist Party troll. Ignore. ^
The Russians liked Charlie Kirk:
https://www.newsweek.com/kirk-killing-medvedev-maga-2128048
^ Commie trill. Ignore. ^
YAWN… more lies from the left.
If yawning is all that you can contribute, then is it time for your nap?
In the first 24 hours after Mr. Kirk’s assassination, 22,000 requests to Turning Point USA to open new chapters.
GREAT news.
Set aside free speech and ask yourself if you want people in K-12 through PhD who hold the conviction that assassination in order to suppress free speech is acceptable? This is not a matter of free speech. This is a matter of qualification for teaching America’s youth, for instilling values which are acceptable in a civilized society. The people who have posted on social media messages which seriously question their qualifications should be removed.
They should be removed. Colleges & schools should never teach hate.
If a corporation serves people from all walks, and someone known to be its employee celebrates the murder of a conservative beloved by a large portion of the customers, that’s bad for business. It could even lead to a boycott. To me it seems a rational and justified business decision to terminate that employee. Protecting free speech does not meat believing people should be insulated from the natural consequences of their speech when it becomes objectively outrageous and despicable.
So true oldman
Ahhh yes, and here we have another Democrat wordsmiths opinion about tolerating the limits of free speech. Another circular argument leading us nowhere but back to good people condoning unruly criminals, political corruption and abhorrent behavior.
RIP Charlie, your death will bring change and resolve to righting our Nation.
The MAGAs have a website where they are openly encouraging (or worse) companies to fire people who point out that Kirk was a vile racist.
So cry me a river.
^ CCP troll. Ignore. ^
The Leftists insist that they OWN the lexicon.. “Racist” is anyone who is rightwing and traditional and thus deserving of doxxing and death should they gain prominence. Rather, “Racism” is primarily an anti-theistic, Darwinian-Natural selection view of biological hierarchy of human evolution. This view then necessitates these scientific considerations to be applied in society, governance, and all aspects of policy and medicine. Leftists are Revolutionaries neither honest nor credible in arguments as the ends always justify the means for their progressive struggle along the rubble-strewn road to ascendency over Nature and Nature’s God.
Wouldn’t you want to fire people who want a “next” list of assassinating people for the political views, namely conservatives? That is Stochastic terrorism. It is riling up hate and rage for someone to actually kill others for just being “conservatives.”
After Kirk assassination, political left social media posts list ‘next’ targets
“In the wake of the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, thousands of social media posts appear to list politically conservative targets for assassination by the political left. Those on the list include podcaster Joe Rogan, Harry Potter author JK Rowling.”
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/after-kirk-assassination-political-left-social-media-posts-list-next
Turley knows rankings on that list. May he be protected everywhere he may go.
Hey george. I noticed you failed (again) to post any proof.
So as usual, that makes you a liar.
Are these the same people who cry about cancel culture?
I suspect that Charlie Kirk would never want people who disagreed with him in good faith to be fired, punished, doxxed, or shamed.
Those who openly call for violence against others do need to be curbed under existing laws that make such behavior illegal.
Those who equivocate need to realize that they are de facto enablers.
JLM,
For the most part, I agree.
However, if I had a employee who wanted a hit list of people for assassination for their political views, I would not want them in my employment or even in my sight. Those are people whom I would not want to associate with, just like I would not want to associate with a pro-Hamas, anti-Israel person. They can spew all the hate and rage they want. I am just not going to associate with them.
Professor Turley…what is wrong with “If you can’t say something good, don’t say anything “?
Linda
The left doesn’t believe in that.
Hate is all they have.
I agree with many of the ideas of you article. Free speach needs to be protected from goverment censorship, full stop. But as employeer do I want someone who celebrates murder, is gleeful about it and is against the values of my company absolutely not. Free speach has consequences, you have the right to say anything you want, I have the right to disagree with you in the public square, not muder you for saying what you say, however I have the right not to have you employeed by me. I draw the line at that also full stop.
One of the best effects of Free Speech is that it let’s you know who and what people are. I can’t imagine many employers would knowingly employ someone who hates more than half of the Country and wants to see them all die gruesome deaths. At the very least, having someone like that around is bad for business.
Well said!
So much sanctimony, so little time. Having been a teacher and served in the military, it is a fact that there was, and should be a different standard of behavior for unelected public servants because they DO serve the entire community. Private views have no place in the taxpayer-funded public square. Elected officials, like the ever-tiresome Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashid Tlaiba, ad nauseum, will not face similar consequences because they simply channel the views of the majority of their equally tiresome constituencies. Those who have lost their jobs in private industry should have remembered their first obligation is to shareholders and customers – damaging the “brand” is always likely to result in termination.
So, for everyone wringing their hands about those who are suffering the consequences of engaging in unfiltered free speech in the public square, I suggest a proper response would be to encourage them to take responsibility for choosing to stand on their “principles.”