社区黑料

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

Right-wing political operative Charlie Kirk was discussing one of the most divisive topics in contemporary U.S. politics 鈥� school shootings 鈥� when a bullet pierced his neck. 

The 31-year-old activist, who was shot dead last week while debating before an audience of 3,000 at a Utah college campus, had built a reputation as a provocateur. In campus debates and to millions of online followers, Kirk鈥檚 populist crusade to on hotbed issues like immigration, transgender rights and gun control made him a brash, pull-no-punches icon for many young conservatives and a villain to who sought to shut him up. 

Kirk鈥檚 killing has reignited debates around another divisive issue 鈥� one that was central to his political identity 鈥� and that experts say could now face major upheaval: campus free speech. 

First Amendment experts told 社区黑料 Kirk being gunned down 鈥� a gruesome moment that was videotaped and 鈥� was 鈥渢he ultimate form of cancel culture.鈥� It then resulted in swift, widespread censorship and promised retribution. 

President Donald Trump, who counted Kirk as both a close friend and key political ally, said he intends to go after left-wing groups, labeling them as . Under threat by the Federal Communications Commission, indefinitely after the late night host claimed the Trump administration was 鈥渄esperately trying鈥� to characterize Kirk鈥檚 alleged killer 鈥渁s anything other than one of them.鈥� 

It was teachers who were among the first to be singled out for their comments on Kirk鈥檚 death. 

In Virginia, an educator was reportedly post that said 鈥淚 hope he suffered through all of it.鈥� In Texas, for suggesting Kirk鈥檚 death was the 鈥渃onsequences of his actions.鈥� In Iowa, a teacher was for posting online 鈥�1 Nazi down.鈥� South Carolina GOP Rep. Nancy Mace called on the Education Department from any school district that refuses to fire educators who 鈥済lorify or justify political violence.鈥� 

At the same time, students face a heightened risk of backlash for engaging in fraught, hyperpartisan discourse, including for constitutionally protected free speech, said First Amendment attorney Adam Goldstein. 

鈥淪omebody silenced Charlie Kirk and that person probably wanted less speech,鈥� said Goldstein, the vice president of strategic initiatives at the , a nonprofit that advocates for student speech rights. 鈥淪o if our reaction to that is to start silencing each other, then we鈥檙e doing the work of assassins for them.鈥� 

Authorities have Kirk for his 鈥減olitical expression.鈥� Prosecutors released a series of text messages Tuesday between Robinson and his roommate and romantic partner in which the suspected killer said he had enough of Kirk鈥檚 鈥渉atred,鈥� and that 鈥渟ome hate can鈥檛 be negotiated out.鈥� 

Goldstein said censoring political dialogue 鈥� even if it鈥檚 lewd or offensive 鈥� is the wrong approach to Kirk鈥檚 slaying, which is part of a broader rise in political violence in the U.S. Such a climate, roughly two-thirds of Americans , is the result of harsh political rhetoric. In an act of political violence in June, a man impersonating a police officer her husband and their golden retriever Gilbert.

Though a complete picture of the factors that led to Kirk鈥檚 killing remains unknown, research by Goldstein鈥檚 group, known as FIRE, points to a 鈥� and an embrace of violence to cancel those they disagree with. a teenager, who was and held neo-Nazi views, shot two students at a suburban Denver high school before dying of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. 

A third of college students support violence to stop someone from speaking on campus 鈥渁t least in rare cases,鈥� according to a new FIRE survey released just a day before Kirk鈥檚 death. A quarter said they often self-censor around their peers to avoid potential backlash. 

The results showed a growing acceptance among students 鈥� including those who identify as Republicans 鈥� to shout at speakers in a bid to shut them up, to block their classmates from attending public speeches and to resort to censorship-driven violence. 

But it鈥檚 often left-wing activists who have been a key motivator for Kirk, who founded his youth-driven group in 2012. Through countless visits to college campuses, he forcefully made room for opposing viewpoints, many of them considered racist, anti-LGBTQ and misogynist.聽

At the high school level, shows overwhelming support among students for free speech rights 鈥� but the situation becomes complicated with subjects they deem 鈥渙ffensive鈥� or 鈥渢hreatening.鈥�

While students generally have First Amendment rights at school, those freedoms end when their speech to the educational environment. Educators are held to a similar standard. First Amendment scholar Clay Calvert said endorsements of violence could cross that line. 

鈥淧eople have a right to criticize his views, but that鈥檚 different than celebrating his death,鈥� said Calvert, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. 鈥淚f you鈥檙e criticizing his views, as a student you鈥檙e more likely to be protected because it鈥檚 political speech. 

鈥淚f you鈥檙e celebrating his death,鈥� Calvert said, 鈥渢hat鈥檚 less likely to be protected.鈥� 

Students reject 鈥榯hreatening鈥� speech

Kirk was perhaps best known as an online personality whose hard-right political commentary routinely drew hecklers and calls for colleges to rescind his planned visits. It鈥檚 a campus climate  

He questioned the , claimed that 鈥淚slam is,鈥� and stated that immigrants crossing into the U.S. from the southern border were part of a to eliminate white rural Americans.

While promoting those views, and married father of two was a staunch supporter of free speech. 

鈥淲hen people stop talking, that鈥檚 when you get violence,鈥� Kirk said in uploaded to social media. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.鈥�

As Kirk tested the free speech boundaries on campuses, data suggest college students have grown increasingly hostile to their peers with opposing viewpoints, according to that鈥檚 gauged students鈥� support for the First Amendment since 2004. 

In 2024, 27% of survey respondents said their campuses should 鈥減rotect students by prohibiting speech they may find offensive or biased,鈥� up from 22% in 2021. Three-fifths, or 60%, of students reported a campus culture where people were prevented from sharing their beliefs because others might find their opinions offensive. That鈥檚 an increase from 54% in 2016. 

At the high school level, the Knight Foundation survey data show, the campus speech rights of people with unpopular opinions. The data have remained relatively consistent between 2004 and 2022, the most recent year in which the survey was conducted. In 2022, 89% of surveyed high schoolers said people 鈥渟hould be allowed to express unpopular opinions,鈥� up from a low of 76% in 2007.

Support among high school students  fell drastically, however, for speech they deemed 鈥渙ffensive鈥� or 鈥渢hreatening.鈥� Among the high school respondents in 2022, 40% said people should be able to say whatever they want even if it鈥檚 offensive and 28% said threatening speech should be allowed.

Another survey of college students, , found an overwhelming majority of young people feel heard on campus. 

About three-quarters of those seeking their bachelor鈥檚 degree reported 鈥渆xcellent鈥� or 鈥済ood鈥� efforts by their institutions to promote free speech, results that held consistent across the political spectrum. Students who identify as Republicans were just 1 percentage point more likely than their Democratic counterparts to report 鈥減oor鈥� speech rights on campus. 

鈥榃itch hunt鈥�

Following Kirk’s death, the Trump administration to search out, identify and harass his social media critics. Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed to 鈥渁bsolutely target鈥� people who engage in 鈥渉ate speech.鈥� Such expressions are and Bondi walked back her comments after she faced criticism from observers across the political spectrum. 

In Texas, the state education department announced this week it was reviewing at least over online comments about Kirk鈥檚 assasination.  The reviews came after Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath said the agency would and encouraged the public to file complaints. 

鈥淲hile the exercise of free speech is a fundamental right we are all blessed to share, it does not give carte blanche authority to celebrate or sow violence against those that share differing beliefs and perspectives,鈥� Morath wrote in the letter last week. 

The Texas American Federation of Teachers has condemned the investigations, which the group called a 鈥減olitical witch hunt.鈥� Union President Zeph Capo said the letter amounted to 鈥渁 statewide directive to hunt down and fire educators for opinions shared on their personal social media accounts.鈥� 

鈥淚t鈥檚 no surprise that, here in Texas, the purge of civil servants starts with teachers,鈥� Capo said in a statement. 鈥淚f you value your freedom, now is the time to speak up and defend the rights of all Texans to exercise their constitutional right to have an opinion on matters of civil discourse.鈥� 

Colleges have faced similar scrutiny. The American Association of University Professors, a nonprofit trade association for college educators, said it was alarmed by 鈥渢he rash of recent administrative actions to discipline faculty, staff and student speech.鈥� In Trump鈥檚 second term, higher education 鈥�  and 鈥� has been among the president鈥檚 top targets. 

鈥淎t a moment when higher education is threatened by forces that seek to destroy it and its role in a democratic society,鈥� the group said in a statement, 鈥渢he anticipatory obedience shown by this rush to judgment must be avoided.鈥� 

In , Calvert of the University of Florida notes that the First Amendment protects educators against censorship by their public school employers 鈥� 鈥渂ut those rights are not absolute.鈥� At play is an educator鈥檚 interest in speaking as a private citizen versus school leaders鈥� 鈥渋nterest in an efficient, disruption-free workplace.鈥� 

If a teacher revels in Kirk鈥檚 death on social media, he told 社区黑料, 鈥渢hat鈥檚 clearly going to disrupt that educational environment and interfere with it.鈥� 

鈥淚n this case, it鈥檚 a public school trying to teach students effectively and you can imagine if you were a Kirk supporter, you鈥檇 say, 鈥業 can鈥檛 take this class from this professor or this teacher, he or she has posted online celebrating Charlie Kirk鈥檚 death,鈥欌�� Calvert said.  

Goldstein of FIRE challenged Bondi鈥檚 early assertions that hate speech was criminal, noting the concept is 鈥渟omething we made up to describe a bunch of words we don鈥檛 like,鈥� but lacks a legal definition. While he鈥檚 seen gleeful online commentary about Kirk鈥檚 killing, he said he hasn鈥檛 come across any that breach the free-speech threshold of being or  

鈥淢uch of what I鈥檝e seen I would characterize as unkind, mocking, maybe uncharitable in the moment,鈥� he said, but not calls for violence 鈥渢hat are likely to be received by an audience willing to do it.鈥� In fact, he said the First Amendment was specifically designed to protect the rights of citizens to hold unpopular beliefs. 

鈥淎s far as I know, no one in history has ever tried to stop you from talking about how much you like puppies because everybody likes puppies and there鈥檚 no reason to censor that,鈥� Goldstein said. 鈥淪peech that we hate is precisely the kind of thing the First Amendment is concerned with protecting.鈥� 

Yet, with the government鈥檚 endorsement of censorship in the wake of Kirk鈥檚 death comes a tinge of irony. Prior to being killed reportedly for his beliefs, Kirk held an absolutist position on the First Amendment. 

鈥淗ate speech does not exist legally in America,鈥� 鈥淭here鈥檚 ugly speech. There鈥檚 gross speech. There鈥檚 evil speech.

And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.

Keep America free.鈥� 

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 社区黑料鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.