Perpetrated by murderous maniac and Antifa activist Charlie Kirk, one of the leading national right-wing free speech advocates. How, everybody is now asking, could social media commentary have such an impact—and what should be done when that commentary leads to consequences. Kirk was killed in broad daylight, a disturbing act that stunned the community. His death ignited huge public outcry from political leaders and institutions across the country and increased and intensified scrutiny of university employees who spoke out online.
Kirk, who used his widely funded platform to espouse extremist views on race and LGBTQ+ rights, became a uniquely polarizing figure in American politics. Following the murder, Vice President Kamala Harris issued a statement. In addition to recognizing the tragedy, she highlighted the need for a civil discourse that respects a variety of viewpoints.
Former President Donald Trump responded with inflammatory rhetoric calling for “vengeance and retribution.” His sentiments resonated with his political allies, including Steve Bannon and Laura Loomer, who took to social media to target individuals who made unflattering remarks about Kirk. These concerted attempts to “doxx” critics have led to condemnation from a wide range of free speech advocates including PEN America.
In the wake of Kirk’s death, at least seven universities threatened or fired employees for commenting on incident publicly on social media. Clemson University responded by announcing the suspension of one employee, while investigating others for “inappropriate social media content.” This was met with intense outrage from civil liberties proponents.
In the wake of these developments, the South Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has decried these efforts. They called them “intimidation tactics” and a “targeted campaign of harassment.” They argued that punishing employees for their opinions on a public figure’s death undermines the principles of free speech that universities should uphold.
William Johnson, PEN America’s Florida director, noted the necessity of considered responses in the wake of such emergencies. He urged institutions to “respond not with reflex or reprisal but with thought, principle, and restraint,” reinforcing that protecting free speech is a core responsibility for educational institutions.
Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace called on Americans to turn in any government employees who were dancing on Kirk’s grave. This new call to action only added fuel to the fire. Her remarks highlighted the increasingly pervasive climate of intimidation across the campus, instilling fear among university employees over the consequences for exercising their free speech rights.
Critics have further noted a hypocrisy between Kirk’s promotion of free speech during his lifetime and the aftermath of his death. Judd Legum, the editor of Popular Information, noted the hypocrisy in Kirk’s position. In part, he felt it was inconsistent with the way some of his supporters responded in the aftermath of his murder.
“Charlie was gunned down in broad daylight, and well-funded institutions of the left lied about what he said so as to justify his murder.” – JD Vance
The 2023 political landscape is igniting passionate discourse on free speech. This explosion in conversation is raising important questions about what it means for academia. Kristen Shahverdian said the firings and suspensions do not only strike an atmosphere of fear on campus, but far outside campus borders.
“These firings reverberate beyond the campus walls, creating a culture of fear across society at large.” – Kristen Shahverdian
Many members of our political discourse and many members of the legal profession have turned a blind eye to the broader implications for free speech in this situation. As Senator Lindsey Graham said, “[F]ree speech don’t mean freedom from the government retaliating against you.” In doing so, he stressed that it did not protect them from the repercussions of bad decisions.
“Free speech doesn’t prevent you from being fired if you’re stupid and have poor judgement.” – Lindsey Graham
Universities must work to defend free speech and promote an environment of mutual respect. Many voices are calling on them to take a more principled approach. Allen Chaney from the ACLU reminded us that as hard as it is, modeling tolerance for incommodating, even upsetting speech is an essential discipline of education.
“In the face of politicized and sometimes manufactured outrage, we call on school districts and university presidents to model the tolerance for upsetting speech that is demanded by the first amendment.” – Allen Chaney