Charlie Kirk and free speech

Efforts to silence speech contradicts Trump executive order citing First Amendment

The recent murder of young conservative activist Charlie Kirk produced a wave of activity and discussion in America. A few observations (some of which should not be necessary to say):

Until Charlie Kirk was killed, I do not think I had ever heard of him. Of the first 10 people I asked, only one was familiar with Kirk and his work and effect on young people and politics. This probably reflects the ages of those asked, and the part of the country where we live. It also may explain why so many of us in the Northeast cannot understand much of the rest of the country.

Kirk’s killing was murder and should be universally condemned, with no ifs, ands or buts. If violence is allowed to be a solution to silence people others disagree with, conservatives, liberals, moderates, Christians, Muslims, Jews, citizens, immigrants, whoever, democracy is in danger. If fear of violence is allowed to affect free exchange of ideas or actions by elected officials or others, then those creating the fear win.

Charlie Kirk, once you learn about him, had a lot to admire, whether one agreed with his opinions or not. He was not afraid to speak his mind. He stood up for what he believed in regarding religion and politics. His custom was to engage others in discussion, often taking the discussion to places where his opinion was presumed to be in the minority, like his scheduled appearance at Dartmouth College canceled after he was killed.

The reaction in many quarters to Kirk’s death resulted in group meetings on college campuses and other places where conservatives and Christians came together to explain how they had not felt able to express their beliefs previously, and the numbers were substantial, such as the memorial gathering at UNH. No one should be made to feel unable to express beliefs in a setting designed to encourage free exchange of ideas.

Charlie Kirk seemed to be a fine person, religious, family-oriented and patriotic. That does not mean everyone who heard him agreed with all of his opinions or beliefs, but in generating enthusiasm among other young people for religion and political activity, he performed a service that obviously was noticed.

The young man who killed Kirk, by all reports, was also from a good family. By doing what he did, he destroyed two young lives, and affected two families permanently.

At the massive memorial service for Kirk, the stark contrast between his crying widow stating that she forgave his killer as Christ had instructed his followers to “love your enemies,” and President Trump who said he “hated his enemies,” presented a basic choice to those who heard it on which example to follow.

The ramifications of Kirk’s killing went in many directions, including the President of the United States, to use his killing to make accusations against political enemies, including accusing them of creating the circumstances to motivate the killer, if not worse, and to seek to shut down the free speech of those who opposed them.

ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show, the FCC chairman’s statements about broadcast licenses being under review on the basis of content, and other statements caused many to be concerned about the fate of free speech in America. In one commentary about this, the bipartisan group, No Labels, cited one of Trump’s executive orders issued on Jan. 20, 2025. It is worth quoting:

“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

“Section 1. Purpose. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment essential to the success of our Republic, enshrines the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without Government interference … the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech … often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies … to suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve … the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate. Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.

“Sec 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to: (a) secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech; (b) ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen; (c) ensure that no taxpayer resources are used to engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen; and (d) identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech …”

In case President Trump has not read this, maybe he should.