Abridging the freedom of speech

One of the most significant things Charlie Kirk was admired for was his commitment to freedom of speech.

He believed people must be free to voice their opinions, even if their words upset someone else. He based his position on the First Amendment, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As Charlie built his following through his podcast and traveling around the country to speak, he said many controversial things, and although his words were hurtful to a lot of people, his right to say those things was never questioned by those who understand the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech may be our most important freedom of all and it’s under threat now. People my age can recognize threats to personal freedoms because we’ve seen it before. Older people experienced government officials in the past who tried to silence Americans – tyrants like Sen. Joseph McCarthy, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and President Richard Nixon. We suffered their horrific attacks on our democracy for too long. It’s painful to see it happening again.

Charlie’s assassination left many Americans traumatized, especially young people on college campuses. He had gained a following of millions who admired his willingness to meet with them and debate the issues of the time. He encouraged college students to challenge him when he said things like, “I think it’s worth it to have some gun deaths every single year, so we can have the Second Amendment to protect our God-given gun rights.”

Or, when he claimed, “Black women like Michelle Obama and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks who stole a white person’s slot at Harvard.” Or, “Gay people are not happy just being able to marry; now they want to corrupt your children.” Charlie seemed to enjoy getting a rise out of students who disagreed with him and he relished confrontation.

Notable is the fact no government official ever tried to deny him his right to speak – never, during his decade of activism. They never tried to silence him despite his inflammatory rhetoric.

Unfortunately, people in today’s government seem to think no one should be allowed to say anything bad about him, and it’s resulting in even more anger and division. After his tragic death, emotions were intense for both those who loved him and those who didn’t love him. Offensive comments have been made by both those who loved him and those who did not.

I have no doubt Charlie would passionately defend everyone’s right on both sides to say whatever they want.

Most of us are untrained in constitutional law so the anger relating to Charlie’s death is not surprising. White House officials, however, and officers of the court, elected representatives and anyone working in public service, should be familiar with the First Amendment of the Constitution. It’s their job to protect the right to free speech of every American and to avoid and prevent retaliation against anyone for what they say.

We’re all being exposed to a pretty good lesson right now on what freedom of speech really means, but most of us aren’t expected to have a good background in the Constitution. Anyone who went to law school should, though. That’s why Attorney General Pam Bondi caused an uproar when she declared she will use the “full force of her authority” to go after anyone who engages in what she calls “hate speech,” including anyone criticizing Charlie, and who the president calls “the radical left.”

Bondi insisted there is a difference between free speech and hate speech, but she was wrong. Constitutional scholars and legal experts immediately jumped all over her for making such an ignorant and irresponsible statement.

It is settled law that when citizens protest peacefully and speak out on political issues, their protests and words are protected. It is settled law that free speech includes hate speech – even when that speech offends us terribly.

As the Attorney General, the highest law-enforcement official in the land, Pam Bondi should know better. She should know the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed there is no “hate speech” exception in the First Amendment.