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.”
Should Antifa or BLM be allowed to set up a literature table on the campus of New College of Florida?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_College_of_Florida
Promoting violence shouldn’t be allowed on campuses, and that leftist hate-group has a proven track record.
If the college is private and takes no government funds that is up to the college.
If that is not true it is reuired to make available to any student sponsored group and public forumn space that it has on the same terms as it does to others.
BTW you are not being clever. There is already plenty of law on this. Outsiders sponsored by students have the right to free expression in any public forum on any government educational institution or government funded education institution.
People on the right are the killjoys who limit freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
Grow up – deranged leftists are the scourge of the earth.
In what way ?
By reducing the cost of government ? By deporting people who are here illegally, committing crimes and consuming public resources ?
By avoiding sending our children to fight in foreign wars that are not in the US interests ?
By ending violations of civil rights on college campuses ?
BTW the pursuit of happiness is something you must do for yourself. If you do not understand that neither govenrment nor anyone else can deliver happiness to you – you will never find happiness.
Well said.
Should drags queens be allowed to perform at New College of Florida?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_College_of_Florida
Misogynistic pride parade? Sure, why not.
Should you wear a clown mask and tape an “l’m a moron” sign to your back?
See above, we can repeat this forever.
Further you are stupidly asking a “should” question – that is a request for an oppinion – probably a moral one.
The correct question is can they ?
And the answer is that within the same constriants as others on a college campus that receives govenrment funding they can.
Should is a different question.
Should drag queens be allowed to perform at Liberty University?
The administration of Liberty University gets to decide that.
However if they take federal money, they are obligated to allow free expression in the Universities public forumns.
If they do not take federal funds – it is STILL a good idea, but not a constitutional requirement.
The appropriate constitutional way to deal with issues such as these is to terminate all government funding to anything that is not a CLEAR government obligation. That would be national defense, and criminal, civil and tort law.
Everything else is best handled by all of us – individually or in groups as we please – so long as we do not use FORCE to do so.
Dittos.
You keep posing these incredibly vague hypotheticals.
Are the drag queens students – the rights of students on campus are different from outsiders
Are they professors – a different set of rights is involved there.
Does the university take public funds – that changes whether the first amendment applies
Were the drag queens invited by a recognized campus organization ?
Are the performing in a public forum on campus ?
Does the campus have a speech code ?
These and many other factors determine the answer to your trolls.
We can deal with hypotheticals but since the answer is heavily dependent on facts not in your hypothetical
it is not really possible to even hypothetically answer your question.
Should the Proud Boys be allowed to perform in your bedroom?
What about the free speech of Charlie Kirk’s critics?
How’s this, is vandalism at a funeral by communists your free speech?
“Report: Man Arrested for Vandalizing Charlie Kirk Memorial at Turning Point USA HQ”
“A 19-year-old man was arrested Sunday for vandalizing a Charlie Kirk memorial set up outside Turning Point USA’s headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, according to Fox News.”
“Fox reported that his name is Ryder Corral, and that he was kicking flowers over at the memorial before being tackled by an onlooker, then arrested by law enforcement.”
– Breitbart
And then there’s Toledo Public Schools:
“A board member for Toledo Public Schools is attacking Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, in posts online.”
“In screenshots shared by conservative activist Robby Starbuck on Sunday, Sheena Marie Barnes compared Erika Kirk to wives in the dystopian television series The Handmaid’s Tale.”
“Barnes wrote, ‘Y’all love Handmaid’s Tale, but missed the point. The wives weren’t victims, they were gatekeepers. They fueled the abuse. They held the system together. Never forget that.'”
– Breitbart
Wearing Meridian High School and allegedly a coach?
https://x.com/i/status/1966032801121317352
Is this legal?
“When someone shows you who they are, beleive them the FIRST Time”
Maya Angelou.
If they love seeing conservatives killed, they can have their free speech. They just need to do it in the unemployment line.
Would you be dismayed at suffering arbitrary consquences just because someone with some power didn’t like something that YOU expressed?
Come on, man! If I posted comments glorifying political assassination, I would be very surprised if I wasn’t sacked.
If you were, then you could hire a First Amendment attorney.
Would that nullify the moral turpitude clause?
No, you couldn’t hire a First Amendment attorney. That would be barred by the no-attorneys-for-morons clause of the Constitution.
Well, if this doesn’t do the trick, nothing will.
Good night, America.
Standing with Charlie Kirk is like standing with Joseph Goebbels.
In what way ?
Goebbels used government power to supress critics.
Kirk used his individual right to free speech to confront critics,
giving them the opportunity to “Prove me wrong”.
The left is actually similar to Goebbels
They lie,
they censor those who disagree
they use violence to silence opponents.
and they are actual fascist –
“Everything in the government,
nothing outside the government
nothing against the government”
Sure sounds like the left.
..please take off your burqa so you can see the real Truth…
“In the memory of our beloved free speech advocate, Charlie Kirk, let us punish his critics.”
Yes, let’s because Charlie Kirk was a mainstream conservative, and if they want him dead, they want us all dead.
Is it absurd to censor people for freely expressing how they feel about a free speech advocate?
The expressions, however tasteless, are what Charlie would have wanted, the great Voltarian
that he was.
He would never condone wishing people dead, and he also believed everyone has a right of association. Associating with ghouls who endorse political violence is not mandatory.
We’re not talking about censorship. We’re talking about association.
As far as censorship is concerned, I want the ghouls to keep talking. They scare people into voting conservative.
First amendment censorship is GOVERNMENT censoring people directly or indirectly – such as Social media has done in the past.
Private actors are free to associate OR NOT with others for whatever reasons they wish.
If a person says or does something that offends others – if you are NOT a government actor, you may end your association with that person.
AS is typical of those on the left – you are engaging in word mangling.
You do NOT have the right to say whatever you please anywhere anytime without consequence – it should not take a genius to grasp that if that were a rule society would cease to function.
You do have the right to say whatever you please anywhere anytime without GOVERNMENT consequence (with a small number of exceptions)
Your idiotic understanding of free speech violates Kant’s catagorical imperative.
True but that does not matter.
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Martin Niemöller
There would be alot less news coverage and far fewer firings if Nick Fuentes was just assassinated.
But it would not change the moral failure of those on the left one iota.
Who is seeking to prevent you from speaking ?
Like everyone else in the country – you are free to speak your mind.
There is absolutely nothing that can be done to preclude that.
Nor can government “punish you” for what you say – except in extremely narrow circumstances.
But ordinary people are perfectly free to judge yopu based on what you say.
Your friends can cease to be your friends
Your employer can cease to be your employer
Your church can terminate your membership.
One of the other first amendment rights is free association.
Your speech can result in others deciding they do not wish to have anything to do with you.
I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Free speech, yes. However, firing teachers and health care professionals (and others) celebrating murder is consequences.
Ans so long as those doing the firing are not acting as govenrment, they are free to do so.
Is it wrong to sympathize with a facilitator of genocide?
It is morally wrong to lie as you are doing.
Charlie Kirk was the Joseph Goebbels of Ukraine, encouraging their genocide by Russia.
Nope.
Some comments are so stupid they need no rebutal.
The US is not obligated to police the world.
I would further note that while What Russia is doing is immoral, it is not Genocide.
Russia is seeking to take over as much of Ukraine as it can get away with.
The ONLY Ukrainians Putin wants dead are those who refuse to be part of Russia.
That is wrong – but it is not genocide.
All killing is not genocide.
Our Leftist neighbors and commenter trolls are THE expert Conspiracy-Kooks of all time. Valuing nothing really, as it is all a vast Neo-Marx/Engels Conspiracy of historical, white, land-stealing, enslaving, patriarchal imperialism and/or Jewishness based on a faked god and made-up rules that have run roughshod over worthless and defectively evolved human organisms for too long. Bereft of purpose and meaning, refusing to honestly face the bottomless pit of ruination they worship, they choose to erect & extol some facade of alternative virtue to present their destructiveness and to opportunistically elevate it as benevolence and progress. This gives cover to the posers while the actual intention continues, of undermining their hated foes and advancing the demise of everything and everyone including themselves. Extend unbridled Free Speech to a Leftist and it follows, like pulling a string on a talking toy, that everyone is a “NAZI, racist, bigot, homophobe, climate denier, insurrectionist, anti-Trans, misogynist,….”. They win when everyone else complies or dies. Leftists are ravenous wolves dressed in Liberalism’s sheep’s clothing and “Co-Exist!” is exemplary of their BS, boobytraps, and clever-sounding lies. Their reason and truth, are no such things, the concept of Free Speech is merely one weapon in their arsenal that they’ve stolen from their enemies, to be used upon them and to convince fools that they’re oppressed, victimized, and are the good guys who will mete out blood-splattered opportunity, justice, and equitability as required, based upon fact-based scientific aims of their idol- “Revolution”.
Is the right engaging in the same cancel culture that they cry about when the left does it?
I do not see government playing a role in any of this
If you have evidence that DHS, the WH, FBI is contacting colleges and demanding they censor someone – please provide it
Cumberland University in Tennessee just fired two professors for CK comments. I don’t know if their comments were on social media or official University websites. I’m assuming they were personal social media accounts. As I’ve stated before, I generally think these people should be protected when they voice their opinions, on personal social media, no matter how hateful. Many here disagree, saying people that teach others, including high school and college, should be held to a higher standard as educators and should be disciplined for their speech. We now have a problem because in this case students themselves led a protest against the professors. When your private remarks start to affect your job, especially as a PUBLIC teacher in high school or college or anywhere else, you run into a really tough question: 1) protect their free speech rights, or 2) fire them based on the unrest they are creating in the workplace (private sector employers where no union bargaining agreements are in place- at will employment- can fire anyone for just about any reason they want to). I don’t have the answer for that, but I’m leaning towards firing them was the right decision based on the workplace unrest. That’s what would happen in most public K through 12 schools. I would like the professors opinion on this one 🙏🙏🙏.
https://www.wkrn.com/news/local-news/students-protest-cumberland-university-cuts-ties-with-employees-over-inappropriate-charlie-kirk-posts/
better to shoot them dead. problem solved
🙅🏽♂️😉☦️😂➡️🔫🇻🇦😜💨😝🫡😮🥱👽👻👈🏽👀🫁🧠🙅🏽♂️💁♀️🧤🦣🦧
Most schools and univeristies are a Special Case with respect to the first amendment.
They take money from the government – in some instance they ARE government,
and they are therefore BOUND to the first amendment.
The First amendment does NOT protect all speech.
It bars GOVERNMENT from abridging free speech.
Private actors – are free to sanction speech however they wish – so long as they do not use FORCE.
YOU are not obligated to allow either Nick Fuentes or Dylkan Mulvany to come to home home and speak.
Freedom of speech is a right with respect to GOVERNMENT. It OBVIOUSLY can not be a right with respect to individuals – otherwise free speech would create a door to violate every other right a person has.
You are not obligated to allow whoever wishes to come to your home and speak, your church, your civic group, your business. You are not obligated to allow people you do not know to come and speak.
You are not obligated to allow people you do know to come and speak.
respectfully professor I believe you are both uninformed and simply wrong.
when a professor, a class leader, an employee of an educational organization VIOLATES the terms of that employment, then yes they should be fired.
this is particularly true with respect to this very subject.
there IS NO HYPOCRISY EXPERIENCED I WILL HIGHLIGHT WHEN YOU DO THIS KIND OF TERMINATION.
think about it clearly, and stop getting free speech in the way of common sense.
Charles took on the established hypocrisy of the education leaders because he understood just how dangerous and incomplete they were and are and the effects this would have on young minds.
his assasination, now a casual joke and made into a mockery may belong in free speech yes, but it also fits precisely in what he was actually trying to establish….that educational leaders are mostly godless, soulless, self engrossed ideaological agents of anarchy. they celebrate the death of Charles for the same reasons they celebrate abortion…black lives matters..the hands up don’t shoot farce…
these people HIDE behind free speech to protect themselves from consequence.
you ought to know better.
let me put this is simple terms that anyone can understand.
free speech is the protected right that you can say nearly anything you want and the GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT intrude.
but that DOES NOT MEAN THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES AT ALL FOR SPEECH THAT IS VITRIOLE, DANGEROUS and just preposterous.
for far too long you professor have given the left radical a space to hide with the imaginary free speech with no repercussions idea. that is a very dumb and unworkable level.
there will always be consequences for dangerous, immoral, outrageous speech.
this is America…the land of the free, the brave, but also one where morality still matters.
it is moral and good to denounce and ensure that dangerous people espousing dangerous rhetoric do not hold educational roles over the minds and lives of young students.
just look at china. do you think this country just magically happened into a communist state because it was such a great idea.
no…it was because the teachers were permitted with no consequences TO LIE TO STUDENTS ON THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL VALUES.
let that be a contrast to note.
Charles remained glued to the tenants of the Bible and his keen insights into the development of this Nation, the United States of America, with an extraordinary real world experience. There are in fact very few that are brave and smart enough to come close to what Charles was teaching. Charles was a teacher…a wise man, far beyond his years.
he understood the real threat that these so called education leaders represented…and how this would impact the young minds or men and women who will become the next generation leaders.
that threat still exists and if there was every a reason to suspend doubts about their agenda, pay attention to how they treat the assasination of a man who continues to be relevant inspite of his demise.
the truth you see, is a lion..you set it free, it defends itself.
the world is now better that Charles took up the flame.
these educators who celebrate, cheer, moralize his murder, deserve to be fired and removed from any job that involved tax payer money and education over young minds.
they have earned that consequence….because they cannot be entrusted to be moral and good people.
God Bless America
regitiger
If these people sue for wrongful termination – that will be tested.
MYRIADS of factors will impact the outcome – as well as the specifics of the comment that resulted in firing.
Purely private actors – with not contracts or any other agreement that might create a right can fire someone for no reason at all. It is not wise, but it is lawful and constitutional.
Colleges are NOT usually purely private actors. Some are government entities and some take govenrment money.
That subjects them to first amendment constraints.
But even the government when acting as an employer can do SOME of the things that private employers do.
Further professors tend to have employment contracts – those giver them rights but also impose obligations on them.
The problem with free speech is, you have to tolerate someone else’s BS.
There’s no problem with free speech, the problem is with responsibility for that free speech. The Founders were of an era where if you ran your mouth, you were often required to back it up with fisticuffs or dueling.
Are we constantly told that government is supposed to protect and secure our rights?
only Smith and Wesson do. Deal with it
Does this mean that the Declaration of Independence is wrong?
The Declaration of indepence says that When GOVERNMENT abuses your rights sufficiently and for long enough you can resort to violence to alter or abolish that government
The Declaration has nothing to say about firing employees
Correct
The right to free speech is specifically that GOVERNMENT may not prohibit you from speaking,
and that others can not use FORCE to do so.
You can however lock our door,
or fire an employee,
or dismiss someone from your church or social group.
There’s no free speech in the Army…
“Department of War Suspends Army Colonel Scott Stephens for Saying Charlie Kirk Deserved to be Assassinated”
–by Cristina Laila Sep. 14, 2025 1:20 pm
“Army Colonel Scott Stephens was suspended after he publicly mocked the assassination of conservative activist and TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/department-war-suspends-army-colonel-scott-stephens-saying/
Roger that, over and out!
https://youtu.be/wzkdKU7kgR0
———————————-
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
Nice video on Charlie
Thanks for posting
I knew next to nothing about him.
It has been said that one’s spouse knows an individual better than anyone else. Erika Kirk, now a widow, loved her husband immensely, as did his children, which is all I need to know about Charlie.
The Left, as I have stated many times, are pro-death (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, nursing homes, castrating boys / mastectomies for girls), infertile, do not propagate, do not produce progeny, are anti-family, ans against science. Their latest talking points are arriving dead on arrival, which is why they are panicking. Violence is all they have to cling to their illusory power. They refuse to admit they are the problem
Today a friend took me to his gun club where we discussed current events. As usual, those within earshot clung to my every word as I discussed with conviction my personal experiences with Communism. I make it known that it is here now. In America. In Democrats Talking Points. We can not allow them to win, and that it will take bloodshed to stop Democrats because that is their currency.
What happened to Charlie Kirk, over a 22 yr old radicalized intelligent man defending his gay boyfriend in transition to becoming a trans woman, is no different than Karl Marx lies of the Communist Manifesto. It is inspiring that his father turned his son, via a minister at his Mormon temple, to LEO because he knew his son had fallen into dark forces that are a threat to America
We went to the gun club to practice our skills at shooting dead these dark forces as a “means of self-defense when people feel threatened with death or serious bodily harm”
Practice makes perfect. Do not be a victim. It is either them or us, and as God is my witness, I choose life
that was my post
Estovir, if you’ve never watched one of Charlie Kirk’s multi-day events, it’s worth browsing through one online. They were thoughtfully produced, held in massive halls filled almost entirely with students, and carried an energy that was both serious and welcoming. When I attended one in Florida, I was struck by how polished the students were: intelligent, well-dressed, and unfailingly courteous. They moved quietly to their seats, without any shoving or noise, and treated one another with real respect. Kirk shared the stage with others and also organized events for all age groups, including some featuring Donald Trump. Over time, he grew more openly evangelistic, which never came from a place of hate, and despite what critics claim, he remained deeply supportive of Israel. His passing was a profound loss for anyone who values peaceful and respectful disagreement.
Very well said, and Charlie would surely appreciate the thoughtful words.
Thanks, he was a wonderful human being. RIP “Prove Me Wrong”
Trumps deceit got Charlies shot.
What an A-hole.
Charlie got shot because of people like you who name call and hate because of politics. Go live abroad and see what your life will be like without the safeguards of free speech! And, why didn’t you fight to impeach Biden for opening the borders – especially when he took the oath of office to defend the Constitution. You are two-faced and actually, probably quite ignorant! Read the Constitution and then, just imagine, you lost your life because you said something people didn’t like? Imagine…. is your life more precious than Charlie’s?
This is a very sad time for country.
“To fire people on campuses for speaking out against Charlie Kirk would make an utter mockery of his work and his death.”
This is a difference between speaking out against Kirk’s position and glorifying in his assassination. Someone stating that stood against everything Kirk espoused is fair game. Declaring that his assassination is “the best thing they’ve seen all year and here are a list of people that should be killed next” is quite different.
I think the line can be drawn between “Would this statement be beyond the pale regardless of whether it was Charlie Kirk or Hassan Piker?” I despise Piker and everything he stands for, but if he were assassinated, and would equally denounce those who celebrated his murder and drew up a list of further leftists to assassinate.
Are you deciding how people can excercise their freedom of expression?
Consider this: When does Freedom of Expression conflict with Freedom of Association? I am certainly not suggesting that those who exulted in Kirk’s assassination be prosecuted. But if you are an employer, especially in positions of public trust, should you be forced to associate with someone who espouses violence? Would you trust your life to a doctor who cheers the assassination of people who disagree with him politically? Would you trust your child to a teacher who does the same? These organizations have a duty to the public at large. Separating themselves from employees who espouse violence is completely appropriate.
To be very clear, I am not suggesting that someone be fired over a political position. I am specifically referring to those who exult in assassination. This is not a matter of politics. It is the same in either direction.
You have mastered the technique of “playing stupid.”
I was going to post something similar but you did it better than I could. I’ve seen elementary school teacher posts celebrating his murder. Are we supposed to be forced to have them in contact with our kids? And what private company wants these monsters associated with their business? There’s a difference between free speech (saying for example hey don’t care he was killed) and terrorism drawing up lists of people to murder and assassinate or even outright exultation in his death.