Freedom of Speech Wasn’t Meant to Protect Those Who Support Assassinations

Commentary

The recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk sparked grief and protests around the world. When some with opposing views openly celebrated the killing, it raised serious questions about the limits of free speech in a democratic society.

Kirk’s work focused on attempting to prevent violent clashes between those with opposing viewpoints through debate and peaceful dialogue—yet his life was taken in the most violent way imaginable. Celebrating his death isn’t a political statement—it’s support for assassination, in some circumstances a serious criminal act. The actions of supporting violence may not always violate the law, but they will have consequences.

Kirk’s Mission: Reviving American Traditional Values

Kirk’s Turning Point USA organization and campus speaking tours focused on more than just supporting free speech. Kirk’s mission was broader: to defend and restore traditional American values rooted in the Christian faith.

Two major conservative movements have emerged in the United States: Turning Point USA, founded in 2012, and President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, which began with his 2016 campaign. These movements seek a return to traditional, faith-based American ideals. Turning Point USA is youth-oriented, while MAGA focuses more on policy change. Although there is some ideological overlap, these two movements have remained organizationally separate.

During Trump’s second presidential campaign, Kirk played a crucial role in rallying student support. He undertook the difficult but essential task of restoring conservative values among the youth, especially on college campuses, which have long been considered bastions of liberal and far-left ideology.

At just 18, Kirk recognized the fundamental crisis facing American society and cofounded the grassroots organization. He was a man on a mission and undeniably influenced many young people.

At a Kennedy Center vigil on Sept. 14,  Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shared a touching story. He said that while his 17-year-old niece was packing for college, she included a Bible in her suitcase. When her mother asked about it, Kennedy quoted his niece as saying, “I want to live like Charlie Kirk.”

In remarks on Kirk’s assassination, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard shared a text sent from a friend a day after Kirk was killed. The friend texted: “What do we do now? I know the answer should be love, the answer should be peace, but Charlie tried that. And it didn’t work.” Gabbard responded: “No, it did work. Powerfully. And that’s why they killed him.”

Within days of Kirk’s murder, Turning Point USA reportedly received more than 37,000 requests to open new chapters. The organization currently has about 900 university chapters and 1,200 high school chapters across the country.

Speech Supporting Assassination Has Consequences

Following Kirk’s killing, some individuals openly celebrated online or in the workplace—sparking widespread debate about free speech. Some of these individuals have already been suspended or fired—but were their First Amendment rights violated?

The First Amendment states only that “Congress shall make no law” abridging freedom of speech. Initially, it applied solely to federal legislation but was later extended to state and local governments as well.

While the First Amendment protects individuals from government restrictions on speech, it does not generally apply to private companies. After Kirk’s death, major companies, including Delta Air Lines and Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, suspended or fired employees who made inappropriate comments on the assassination.

A civil rights lawyer told an Atlanta-based television station that “with a private employee, you really have no rights.”

“A private employer is really in the business of making money, and if they feel your behavior online, on the weekend, or on your own time makes them look bad, they can choose to let you go,” the lawyer said.

This is especially true in professions tied to public trust. Among those who were suspended or fired from their jobs were educators; as role models for students, they’re expected to meet basic moral standards. Others were health care workers, whose jobs are fundamentally about protecting life, not endorsing political murder. Employers are within their rights to uphold institutional values.

Furthermore, those who are fired still retain their ability to express their views. Their right to free speech has not been taken away.

The State Department has announced that the United States will deny or revoke visas to foreign nationals who celebrate Kirk’s assassination.

Some argue that this shows that the United States lacks free speech. However, this is a misunderstanding. As the saying goes, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” A host is under no obligation to keep guests and need not give a reason for asking them to leave.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.