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 watched the Bill Maher conversation with Charlie Kirk on YouTube. I had never paid much attention to Charlie, but this video reveals much about his character….about his concept of free speech. It’s not at all the way Turley strains to make sure the most outrageous, manipulative voices get included under that umbrella.
Charlie’s idea of free speech is first and foremost conversational — interactive. It’s face-to-face, not hiding from an anonymous perch behind a screen and keyboard. It’s Socratic, meaning driven by posing well-formed questions grounded in curiosity (not rhetorical ones seeking to argue a point). The atmospherics of conversation are friendly — based on learning about one another, and how opinions came to be formed. It’s not a competition as in “I’ll show him!” In the Maher vid, you see Charlie’s politeness and willingness to keep up an engaging conversation, rather than scoring points. It’s a highly cooperative endeavor.
These qualities are never mentioned by Turley as responsibilities of speaking in public. Turley is lining up behind the lowest common denominator, which is walking right up to the line of criminal incitement, well past where unhinged, militant zealotry has set in with its calculated inauthenticity (e.g., impostering), deceitful manipulation, and not-subtle intimidation. Turley calls it “rage” — he knows it is bad for our country and our problem-solving bandwidth and confidence — but he insists there is nothing we can or should do (legally) about it. I find that depressingly escapist.
If we made up our minds to restore civility, respect and authenticity in the public square, we’re creative enough to come up with something — something which is consistent with the 1st Amendment and keeping government’s paws off. The first step is to recognize how dysfunctional we’ve become as a people once able to perceive and act in consensus. Because the slew of problems headed our way, and already dropped in our inbox, will defeat us unless we pull out of this slump and get our act together.
There’s much to be learned stylistically from the Kirk-Maher conversation.
This Kirk , Robinson tragedy was engineered by social media on both sides, There are very powerful people that own and control the platforms. I believe they want you to be triggered to act with violence. Their goals are not what you think they are, their goals are to reorder society with violence leaving an elite class of technocrats in control. Doubt what you read on social media.
“Both sides” blah blah blah. GFY, liar.
Sure, elites engineering violent chaos….good for business planning, investments, raising children. Sure thing!
The Left has censored, oppressed, and harassed conservatives. They were banned if they disagreed with the George Floyd riots, or said men can’t become women.
I don’t feel safe being treated by a doctor or nurse who wants me dead, or glorifies domestic terrorism. The radicalization of Tyler Robinson shows the peril in ignoring the Democrat takeover in the education system, from kindergarten to graduate school. Liberal teachers are encouraged to bring personal politics into the classroom to indoctrinate children, and to discriminate against conservative children. I don’t want to buy any products or services from anyone who wants me and mine dead.
No employer should have to go out of business because an employee’s personal beliefs reflected upon the company. I don’t care what politics any teacher has, as long as they don’t bring that into the classroom, treats all students fairly, and does not harass or discriminate. students whose opinions differ. If a teacher’s personal beliefs include any desire that harm come to students or their families, then that person is not getting anywhere near my child.
That said, I don’t want to get into the censorship territory of the Democrats. Already, they call us just as bad.
People can say whatever they want. X should not be censored. No one should get banned on X. I’d rather know if someone supports domestic terrorism. I’m going to react to people’s speech with speech of my own, and I reserve the right to vote with my wallet.
We conservatives have been on the receiving end of censorship, to the point that we couldn’t discuss or express ourselves on social media. We need to ensure that public square is kept open for those who hate us.
I support everyone’s right to free speech. I reserve my own right not to associate with someone because of that speech.
Oh, Jonathan, Jonathan. You can’t see the difference between speaking against Charle or his ideas on the one hand, and speaking joyfully that he was executed on the other?
You haven’t noticed, it seems, that no one is interfering with expressing joy at Charlie’s assassination; only that private companies and schools and government agencies don’t want to employ people who feel joy about assassination.
If a teacher said “it’s about time trans people started shooting school kids!” would the First Amendment protect that person’s teaching job? You seems to be arguing so.
You haven’t thought this through, Turley.
Rabble:
1st A protects citizens from government, not employees from employers.
dum-dum
I agree. Turley would classify someone secretly lobbying your employer to fire you (based on your political views) as voicing “speech you don’t like”. He says we have to tolerate such dishonorable, backhanded treachery because it is “speech that doesn’t incite impending violence”. His common sense has been abandoned diving down a rabbit-hole of legalistic reductionism.
Criticizing Charlie Kirk is fine. Maybe not the right moment, but it is the epitome of Free Speech.
Vocally cheering and mocking the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk is also “free speech.” However, it is also a public admission that you are evil, and an idiot for posting it online.
We should not be surprised that employers don’t want to hire or employ people who are demonstrably “stupid” and “evil”
+100
The problem is that tolerance on the part of the left will not impress the left, or change their mindset. They cannot be shamed and they will see it only as weakness. Perhaps a meaningful payback may encourage them to rethink their behaviour, and then we can talk about a reset of mutual interactions
I meant to write tolerance on the part of the RIGHT will not impress the left…Apologies
Sure, minimal speech restrictions on individuals expressing their own opinions. The restrictions we have already — libel, incitement, etc. — work just fine. But if you are speaking on behalf of an organization, things are different. You have an obligation to protect the reputation of an employer.
Wow, the murder of a Godly man has brought the demonic, ghoulish trolls to this website en masse.
I’ve known the Left us vile and evil, but I didn’t know just how evil until now.
Anonymous,
That’s precisely the point, Charlie KIrk was brutally murdered exactly because he was a Godly man.
In 2025 America, if you’re on the left, Christians & Jews are to be mocked, marginallized, pillaried, ostracized, cancelled, disregarded and shot down like a rabid dog.
Now, had KIrk been a Muslim… The left would be fairly screeching, at the tops of their lungs, that the Trump admin and the college didn’t do enough to keep him safe.
The radicals in the Muslim community, Mark Levin refers to them as “Islamists” have a 7th century view of the world, and would kill the vast majority of the left’s pet groups in a heartbeat. That fact seems to be totally lost on them.
It’s downright pathetic, really.
Trump spoke at a gala at his Bedminster club yesterday.
In a moment of unusual candor and clarity he said the following:
“Smart people don’t like me, you know? And they don’t like what we talk about,”
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1967233388147847434
So what does that say about the MAGA morons here who seem to LIKE him quite a lot.
Any thoughts ???
^ DNC troll. Ignore. ^
Very interesting thought.
Seems to confirm Trump’s statement
Any idiot can take a piece out of a speech and mock it. Everyone I know is well educated (before the universities became completely corrupt,) and they are “smart.” We support President Trump because he represents American tadeonal values, and is effective in implementing corresponding programs, in spite of extremist public officials in opposition.
Anyone who feels the need to proclaim how educated and smart they are, is not very smart.
False, they are just not very humble.
Even there – there is really no such thing as humility with an anonymous poster
HAHAHAHA.. right.
ATS is just playing word games.
Trump said “Smart” – I think he was being facetious, though it is possible the remark was targeted at his audience.
Regardless it is absolutely correct that Trump is not liked among a large portion of highly educated people.
Those people may or may not be smart. But they are definitely more educated than most, and they are definitely BADLY educated. Todays education can destroy the intelligence or very smart people.
Not really. lots of allegedly smart people beleive preposterously stupid things.
Trump is hated by the clerisy – the class of intellectuals used to excercising unearned power.
John Say
And ALL stupid people believe preposterously stupid things.
You would appear to be evidence of that.
Above I provided a simple intelligence test – using a series of major public matters that most of us have publicly expressed our views on that you can use to measure your own intelligence and that of others – other posters, public figures.
And It is fairly easy to expand.
So how well did you do ?
More lie by the left.
An inability to express logical arguments leads to name calling, harassment and if that doesn’t do it, killing. The second psychological defense we learn as children is projection as in “I didn’t do it” (denial), “he did”. (projection.)
” I’m not a moron (denial). He is”. (projection).
We don’t usually respond to children here but something tells me you might be of the mental age now where I can help you move from level 1 (you don’t know what you don’t know) to levels you know you don’t know at which point maybe you’ll shut up and learned. í70ü
bill
Further confirmation of Trump’s remarks.
And why are you attacking me ???
I’m just the messenger.
Trump is the one who said that if you like him, then you are not very smart.
I am simply agreeing with Trump
Again word games – that is not what he said.
John Say
The last refuge of someone who is not smart is denial.
Trump’s exact words:
“Smart people don’t like me, you know”
If he admits that smart people don’t like him, then the only logical conclusion is that anyone who DOES like him is not smart.
What other conclusion is possible ??
Yup, sure do. There are “smart people” and there are “smart people”.
The lengths leftists will go to just to avoid talking about how vile, hate-filled, and murderous they are is surpassed only by their self-righteousness and v0mit-inducing condescension.
Trying to defend the indefensible on one hand, while challenging the mental ability of their opponents on the other is a sure sign they know — at least on some level — just how preposterous their positions are. A leftist’s inability to critically think manifests as their remarkable ability to blather on, and on, and on about *anything* except the subject at hand: Resorting to murder when they can no longer rationalize their beliefs.
Challenge your self to ponder, “I wholly disagree with what you say and will contend to the death for your right to say it.” Until you can truthfully say that, please butt out of conversations about free speech.
If smart people think they’re smart then why they are so stupid?
“Clever sillies: why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19733444/
“Why clever people make more stupid mistakes than most” – BBC
“Why Smart People Are Stupid” – The New Yorker
“Why Do Smart People Do Foolish Things?” Scientific America
“If Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives, Why Are Liberals So Stupid?” – Psychology Today
So it would seem to me that you’re the one who’s being the idiot here, not anyone else. Perhaps you lack the self-realization because you think yourself as being too intelligence for the rest of us and yet lack the mental wherewithal to not even realize that. Once again, liberal elitism is rearing its ugly head for all to see. ☺️
Big Jon, as usual you make a lot of sense. For a moment you forgot that you are directing your thoughts to human beings. Human nature doesn’t change. Bart Ehrman claimed he turned his back on Christ because of all the evil in the world.
Been a lot of evil around for a long, long time. Evil was plentiful when he said, with astonishment and awe, “For me, at the time, it felt like an enormous relief, a lifting of burden, a sense of connecting with the universe in a way I never had before. Very powerful!” “At that point Jesus became not only my Lord and Savior, but also my best friend and closest ally.” “Jesus was my model of self-giving love…”
“We the People of the United States…secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY.”
– The American Founders, 1789
The First Amendment aside, those who are celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk, regardless of political affiliation, status, religion, profession or none of the above, have discarded any remnant of a moral compass that they might have once possessed — acknowledging, of course, that they were not already aborted — and now gather among themselves as a malignant tumor of soulless ghouls. As Charlie would challenge: prove me wrong.
PT, YOUR BLOG IS TROLLED OUT.
Is this your definition of troll: someone who makes good points that I disagree with, going against the group-think.