Will Rogers once observed that “Everything is funny, as long as it’s happening to somebody else.” No one ever personified Rogers’ rule as much as University of California, Irvine instructor Matt Goldman, who cracked everyone up this week by joking about celebrating the anniversary of the assassination of Charlie Kirk by alluding to the possible assassination of independent journalist Nick Shirley.
Today is the anniversary of the murder of Kirk. In anticipation, Goldman posted a picture of Shirley with the line “Someone can do the funniest thing just before the Kirkiversary.” It was a response to an Instagram post by the Harvard Republican Club promoting a speech by Shirley.
Goldman reportedly has long found the deaths of disfavored people to be a real knee-slapper, allegedly mocking the deaths of Henry Kissinger and others. Indeed, Goldman takes Gallows humor to a particularly dark place in American politics.
After the murder of a UnitedHealthcare CEO in 2024, Goldman allegedly posted a photo of the “Super Mario” character Luigi putting a gun to someone’s head with the statement “Let’s not pretend as if America isn’t the greatest country on earth.”
In another Instagram post, Goldman allegedly wrote, “Lmao abolish ICE. only good ICE agent is a dead one.”
Goldman also teaches at Chapman University and specializes in “social justice rhetoric and community-centered composition.”
It has become common in higher education and on campuses to laugh and even celebrate the murder of Kirk. Recently, socialist Hasan Piker led a sing-a-long with hundreds mocking his death.
Hate-spewing influencers like Jennifer Welch have even justified his assassination. Protesters regularly reenact his murder, and this week at Georgetown and the University of South Carolina students are celebrating “Kirkiversary” with “Kirk Look-a-Like” competitions.
Chapman University has expressed concern over Goldman’s hateful postings, but he is hardly unique. Faculty departments have largely purged their ranks of any conservative, libertarian, or Republican faculty members. According to various surveys, many departments have no Republicans. Forty percent of faculty say they would vote against any Trump supporter, regardless of academic accomplishments or publications. Recently, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) abandoned its long-standing political neutrality and endorsed radical Michigan senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed.
At the same time, radical faculty members on the left are common across the country and many espouse the same hate-filled and violent rhetoric.
Professors have regularly advocated “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters, and making other outrageous statements. A San Diego University professor celebrated the death of an Israeli soldier who was eaten by a shark.
At the University of Rhode Island, Professor Erik Loomis responded to the murder of a conservative protester by saying that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was given a promotion by the University of Rhode Island after his remarks).
Social media postings present difficult challenges for universities. These are statements often made on private sites and are not part of academic duties. Yet, universities have regularly taken action against faculty members who espouse what they view as prejudicial views based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. These faculty members rationalize or support violence targeting conservatives.
The problem is not that faculty can voice extreme political values in private postings. Those views should be protected. Likewise, the problem is not that faculty pursue far-left views in their academic work. Those views are protected by academic freedom.
The real problem is the virtual absence of any countervailing views today, after faculty have turned our universities into ideological echo chambers. There is a crushing orthodoxy on our campuses that fosters this type of extremist, violent rhetoric. For conservative students, it is common to be taught entirely by faculty who denounce their views and values.
While faculty members continually virtue signal about maintaining inclusive environments, they rarely seem concerned about the hostile environment for anyone who holds right-of-center views on campuses. A faculty member who mocks “land acknowledgments” is intolerable for many faculty, but those mocking the murder of conservatives are merely engaging in “spirited” debate.
The espousal of violent ideations or hateful views against conservatives can cross the line. Even if students are not concerned about their physical safety, they are likely concerned about their academic standing in classes taught by such hateful faculty. If a faculty member finds killing conservatives funny or justified, it is unlikely that they would welcome conservative viewpoints being expressed in classes.
The lack of consistency in dealing with what I have called “rage rhetoric” is an indictment of higher education. Imagine if a faculty member mocked the killing of minority students or Democratic activists. The response would be immediate and final.
However, the humor in killing conservatives is precisely because it is “happening to somebody else.” The most unnerving aspect of this latest controversy is not that Goldman is making jokes about assassinating conservatives, but that many in academia find it uproariously funny.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
In our first amendment, the accountability component for free speech is the free press. The press is us. Say what you want – then the press can publish who you are and what you said and did for the world to see… often for the rest of your life and beyond… as it should be. The rest can then make their choice if and how they relate to you, buy what you’re selling – or not.
Interesting perspective. I think you’re on to something.
Clayton Goldstein, Exactly. This is one of the few comments here that actually understands how the First Amendment works.Freedom of speech means the government can’t throw you in a gulag for making a tasteless joke, but it absolutely does not mean freedom from societal consequences.
You have every constitutional right to hop online and post an edgy, toxic meme. But under that exact same Constitution, the press and the public have the right to screenshot it, publish your name, and make you famous for all the wrong reasons.
The First Amendment protects you from the cops, not from the court of public opinion.
You mean the mob. The first amendment doesn’t protect you from the mob? why? what’s the mob gonna do? Is this so-called ‘public opinion’ a threat now? What if I don’t care what other people think? Should I hide my opinions? Is that your advice here? What’s your IP address?
such a clown, that X. The ISSUE is NOT “Freedom of Speech” or the First Amendment. It is the censorship, crushing, discrediting, burying, or filtered non-publication of opposing speech. We have a politically-bent MEDIA in the U.S. that is perfecting those tactics.
Apparently you didn’t read what I wrote. Try again. Slower this time.
you dumb clown.
Show me where Turley or Darren has published your reaL name so that people can avoid you. If you were not so frightened of consequence, you would not use the dumb “X” sign
Where to we get the most damaging anti-Trump, anti-administration “anonymous” sources.
clown too stupid to realize his denseness.
IDIOTS abound in the new world of politics
Some 60 years ago, one of my professors, in response to a comment that a student made, proudly confessed that she did not have television in her home. “Oh, WE don’t have television!“, was the utterance. That I I still can recall it, clearly,in retrospect, that comment was a harbinger of things to come. “Teach your children well,” sang CSN&Y, back in the day. Now we are obliged to add“ Choose their teachers well.”, “ and know they love you.”
When humanity sees nothing wrong with this, this is the end of our way of life. We place excuses over our morality. JT is bringing this to light. However, when I speak to people who actually work for a living, they are too busy to stay informed. It is easier to be uninformed than deal with the realities that demand our challenges. So here we are — at the brink of ‘extinction’. As to the young, they aren’t consumed with fighting this battle because they have conditioned to ‘be happy’. Ignorance is certainly bliss!
The Youth Aren’t Brainwashed, They Just Have Priorities: Blaming the younger generation for being ‘conditioned to be happy’ is a bizarre complaint. Young people aren’t ignoring these online battles out of ignorance; they are ignoring them because they have actual, real-world problems to deal with—like the housing market, inflation, and finding a job. Refusing to participate in a toxic, online culture-war circus isn’t a sign of ‘ignorance,’ it’s a sign of basic emotional intelligence.
Turley isn’t ‘bringing a civilizational crisis to light’—he’s just farming for clicks from people who want to feel outraged. Step away from the keyboard, take a deep breath, and realize the world is not ending just because the internet remains a toxic place.
Anonymous – I don’t want to feel outraged. Nor do I feel outraged. But I do appreciate the balance Professor Turley provides. The MSM never touches most events the professor covers. So he provides a valuable and unique window into what’s actually happening in certain corners of the nation and world. And there is no advertising on his site, so there is no basis to conclude he gets paid through the clicks you accuse him of farming for. Best wishes.
#WeAreEstovir
@Old Man from Kansas
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
It’s actually the other way around. Professor Turley frequently plucks niche stories from the absolute fringes of the news cycle and frames them as if they are mainstream crises.
For a real mainstream issue, look at the massive legal battle surrounding the Missouri redistricting mess. It is clearly a Republican scheme to rig the congressional map against the explicit will of the state’s voters, who used the petition process to force the legislature to comply with their wishes. The Missouri Supreme Court even agreed unanimously. Yet, right after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block that ruling, a federal, Trump-appointed district judge stepped in and issued an order completely overriding the state Supreme Court’s authority.
I am a fan of Professor Turley’s coverage, but let’s be honest: he hyper-focuses on very narrow issues specifically tailored to criticize the left, while ignoring blatant institutional overreach when it happens on the right.
Anonymous – I don’t agree with your characterization. I believe many of the events the Professor covers are reflective of larger movements taking place that the MSM doesn’t touch. In this way the Professor provides balance. The MSM has been slanted left for at least 50 years, maybe 60. In survey after survey, its content creators are over 90% liberal Democrats, and that affects their selection of stories to cover, and the way they cover them. There are a small number of conservative media outlets such as Fox and the NY Post. Turley is another one. Many anonymous commenters come on here and complain bitterly about PT’s coverage, and they also insult Fox and the NY Post while they’re at it (albeit rarely do they engage with the substance, evidently believing calling Fox and NY Post names is sufficient rebuttal). With the Internet, there is now a whole new “ecosystem” – to use a trendy word – of content creators out there who do not follow the standard liberal selection and treatment of news stories. In short, the Left’s virtual media monopoly is broken. That drives some people crazy, since they’re used to maintaining virtual monopoly control over the dissemination of information to the public. Best wishes.
#WeAreEstovir
Oldmanfromkansas, Studies historically show that more journalists lean left or register as Democrats than Republicans that is true but, the ‘over 90% liberal’ figure is an unverified internet myth.
Major networks and national newspapers are owned by massive, billionaire-led conglomerates—hardly ‘socialist collectives’ eager to dismantle the status quo. Their primary driver is clicks and advertising revenue, not Marxist ideological purity. Conservative talk radio has absolutely dominated the American airwaves since the late 1980s. Fox News has been the most-watched cable news network on television for over two decades. Suggesting that the right is some sort of scrappy underground resistance fighting a monolithic monopoly is a carefully manufactured marketing strategy, not reality.
Claims that people ‘complain bitterly’ about Turley because they hate conservative views are a clear straw man.
Main stream Media focuses on the national level big stories. Professor Turley focuses on the fringes, looking for those stories that emphasize his bash-the-left narrative. I don’t blame him for making that choice. It’s clearly meant to cater to his audience. I don’t hold him in contempt for it. I’m just making an observation that is plainly obvious.
. . . the ‘over 90% liberal’ figure is an unverified internet myth.
False. I’ve been following polling on this topic for over 35 years, and 91% is the steady number since the early 90s.
Major networks and national newspapers are owned by massive, billionaire-led conglomerates—hardly ‘socialist collectives’ eager to dismantle the status quo.
This is what people always tell me when I mention the polling about content creators. It is irrelevant who owns the corporations. The owners by and large have decided not to interfere with the content creators (although there are a few rare exceptions). It is the political leanings of the content creators – the editors and reporters – that counts. The proof is in how slanted the stories are on all MSM outlets other than Fox and the few others that lean right.
Conservative talk radio has absolutely dominated the American airwaves since the late 1980s. Fox News has been the most-watched cable news network on television for over two decades.
That also proves my point. The MSM is so consistently left-leaning, that half the country wants an alternative. That creates a market for talk radio and Fox. But the point is, regardless of the existence of those alternatives, Americans are inundated 24/7 with the narrative from the MSM. There is no escaping it even for someone who consciously chooses to seek out alternatives.
Claims that people ‘complain bitterly’ about Turley because they hate conservative views are a clear straw man.
Not at all. I see it frequently on this blog.
Main stream Media focuses on the national level big stories. Professor Turley focuses on the fringes, looking for those stories that emphasize his bash-the-left narrative.
This is an example of what I mean. The liberals who frequent this blog have never, in my experience, admitted that there is anything at all wrong with the extreme behaviors that Professor Turley brings to light. They are defensive and choose to criticize the professor for mentioning these events, characterizing them as one-offs in every single case (which are legion), rather than discuss what might be going wrong that lead to the events. You are an example of an anonymous commenter doing just that.
#WeAreEstovir
It matters not why the professor writes about these things. The fact is they are evil and destructive to our republic and way of life. We are headed for a violent response from those who have so far remained muted. It only requires the correct event to set it off. When it comes both extremes and those in the middle will tremble.
Thank you for shining the light on how demented these people really are. Eventually KARMA just might catch up to them and then let’s see who is laughing.
“The most terrifying force of death comes from the hands of Men who wanted to be left alone. They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love. They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it. They know, that the moment they fight back, their lives as they have lived them, are over.”
“The moment the Men who wanted to be left alone are forced to fight back, it is a form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these Men who wanted to be left alone, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives. They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. TRUE TERROR will arrive at these people’s door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy… but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the Men who just wanted to be left alone.”
–Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
Great quote. And chillingly true. Thank you.
The only part I disagree with is this: “They fight with raw hate . . .”
The proper motivation is to fight with passionate love — for that time in the future to once again be left alone.
You’re welcome. I also feel as you on that four letter word. However, the first sentence in the second paragraph always reminds me to never go there.
Absolutely
Some People can’t live without Their Wars.
That’s the problem.
—
Ego is the worst confidence trickster we could ever figure we could ever imagine because you don’t see it and the single biggest con that is I am You. The problem is that the ego hides in the last place if you’d have a look, within itself it disguises its thoughts as your thoughts its feelings as your feelings you think it’s you.
People’s need to protect their own egos knows no bounds they will; lie, cheat, steal, kill do whatever it takes to maintain what we call ego boundaries.
People have no clue that they’re in prison, they don’t know that there is an ego they don’t know. The distinction at first it’s difficult for the mind to accept that there’s some something Beyond itself that there’s something of greater value and greater capacity for Discerning truth than itself.
In religion the ego manifests as the devil and of course no one realizes how smart the ego is because it created the devil so you could blame someone else in creating this imaginary external.
I mean usually, usually made a real enemy for ourselves and that becomes a real danger to the ego.
But that’s also the ego’s creation there is no such thing as an external Enemy.
No Matter What that voice in your head is telling you all perception of an enemy is a projection of the ego as the enemy.
In that sense you could say that 100 of our external enemies are of our own creation.
Your greatest enemy is your own inner perceptions of your own ignorance.
Deutsch:
[Link] youtube.com/watch?v=svrwo3zuZFE
Español:
[Link] youtube.com/watch?v=KBKJA5PngK4
English:
Professors like Goldman have to rely on expressing violent ideation because they’re not intelligent or accomplished enough to get attention and applause any other way. These faculty members are midwits who got their positions by demonstrating unquestioning devotion to the leftist religion. They are a reflection of the American left as a whole: a depressing combination of mean and dumb.
#WeAreEstovir
The idea that Goldman is posting dark humor because he isn’t ‘accomplished enough’ to get attention assumes he was desperately seeking national spotlight in the first place. He posted a single, edgy comment on an Instagram thread. He didn’t issue a national press release. The only reason he got a massive wave of ‘attention and applause’ is because right-wing media outlets threw an absolute hyperventilating tantrum over it and handed it to him on a silver platter.
Claiming people only get hired in higher education through ‘unquestioning devotion’ to a political ideology completely misunderstands the brutal reality of modern academia. Universities don’t care about your soul; they care about cheap labor. Adjuncts and lecturers get hired to grade mountains of freshman essays for pennies on the dollar because institutions want to exploit their labor, not because they passed a secret Marxist purity test.
At the end of the day, it’s just pure selective outrage. When the right laughs at brutal hammer attacks on elderly Democrats, it’s ‘spirited political satire.’ When an academic makes a joke about a conservative, suddenly it’s a civilizational crisis caused by the midwit apocalypse. Come on man. I swear you’re smarter than that. But you keep probing me wrong.
How often have you heard ” jokes” this disgusting made byprofessors on the right.
If your theory about cheap labor is true, what does that say about the value of a university education?
” The mentality of a person who lives inside a closed system of thought, Communist or other, can be summed up in a single formula:
He can prove everything he believes, and believes everything he can prove… It produces a scholastic, hair-splitting brand of cleverness which affords no
protection against committing the crudest imbecilities.
People with this mentality are found particularly among the intelligentsia”
– Arthur Koestler 1952
Yeah this guy is a real humble virtuous person X.
No probes pls
“I swear you’re smarter than that.”
This is X’s learned tactic.
He is not smart enough to realize that it doesn’t work on smart people, including OMFK
The final tactic of the left is always violence as they cannot cope with losing, it short circuits their reason replacing it with emotional rage like a toddler. TDS is a sort of a emotional tampon coping mechanism for them so I encourage it, not just for the entertainment value. The age of rage is designed to replace reason with what used to be called ‘behavioral problems’.
“Faculty departments have largely purged their ranks of any conservative, libertarian, or Republican faculty members.”
Maybe that should read:
“Faculty departments have largely purged their ranks of any human beings.”