Tag: Charlie

  • Remembering Charlie Kirk, conservative students keep carrying light of truth on campus

    Remembering Charlie Kirk, conservative students keep carrying light of truth on campus

    OPINION/ANALYSIS

    Undaunted by the murder of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, students are fighting to keep the light shining on truth and freedom on college campuses all across the country.

    In the month that followed Kirk’s death, TPUSA reported receiving more than 62,000 requests to start or join a chapter.

    Since then, some students have faced death threats, and others battles with administrators and student governments. But the September tragedy stirred up courage in many young adults – and with it came new hope for the future.

    The College Fix has covered many of these efforts. Here are a few of the highlights:

    Welcoming debate 

    This essay by Benjamin Ellis, a student at University of North Carolina Asheville and a Democrat, captured wide-spread attention after Ellis described his surprise at finding the campus TPUSA club was more welcoming of him than the College Democrats.

    Battling death threats

    TPUSA chapter president Jacob York, a sophomore at Olivet Nazarene University, received graphic death threats linked to his attempts to get his chapter officially recognized. York told The College Fix that those who stand for truth should expect persecution, and he is not backing down. 

    Students on other campuses also have faced harassment and threats. 

    Celebrating persistence 

    If at first you don’t succeed: TPUSA students at Fort Lewis College in Colorado refused to take “no” for an answer when the student government rejected their request for official recognition. After the situation garnered attention online, including from state lawmakers, the student government quickly reversed course and granted the chapter’s request.

    Finding strength in community

    Madailein McDonough, president of University of Mary Washington’s newly formed TPUSA chapter, told The College Fix that her ultimate goal is to be “confident in our beliefs, respectful in our approach, and fearless in defending free speech.”

    “When you join TPUSA, you’re not standing alone; you’re joining a network of students nationwide who have your back. Our chapter prioritizes safety, respect, and support, and we believe that strength comes from standing together peacefully and proudly,” she said.

    Denied but not defeated

    Meanwhile, students at private institutions like Seton Hall, Vanguard, and Point Loma Nazarene universities have faced obstacles from administrators and student government leaders. Their requests for official recognition have been denied, but TPUSA students at those schools continue to make their voices heard. 

    While TPUSA was the name that dominated, other students and conservative organizations also served as beacons of light on their campuses, dedicating their efforts to liberty, faith, family, and our Constitutional rights. 

    Consider the thriving Catholic campus ministry at Arizona State University and the revival spreading through a Bible study that University of Pittsburgh athletes started earlier this year.

    There are the young pro-life women who started a scholarship for parenting moms at Queens College, and the Massachusetts college student who has given out 15,000 pro-life bumper stickers to spread the word about unborn babies’ human rights. 

    Others fought administrators, including a Young Americans for Freedom chapter that succeeded in lobbying the University of Alabama to grant a waiver to omit gender ideology language from the club’s organizational constitution.

    And there are the bold, lone voices of the de-transitioners – students who share their heartbreaking personal stories about transgenderism in an effort to help their peers avoid the same painful mistakes. 

    These young adults are exhibiting strength in difficult times. They are refusing to compromise or deny their beliefs even in the face of a very real danger. 

    And they give us another reason to hope this season.

    MORE: We spoke with the Turning Point leader forced off campus after death threats

    Source link

  • ‘Let them sue’: Iowa lawmakers scoffed at First Amendment in wake of Charlie Kirk shooting, records show

    ‘Let them sue’: Iowa lawmakers scoffed at First Amendment in wake of Charlie Kirk shooting, records show

    The months since Charlie Kirk’s murder on Utah Valley University’s campus in September have seen a deluge of firings and suspensions of teachers, faculty, and staff across the country for celebrating the assassination, or just for being insufficiently mournful. As the dust settles and court cases proceed, more details are emerging about the political pressures universities faced to punish protected political expression.

    In Iowa, lawmakers were so incensed by one Iowa State University staff member’s speech about the shooting that they outright dismissed the possibility of a lawsuit. Public records obtained by FIRE through a Freedom of Information Act request show state lawmakers exchanging messages inviting the possibility of First Amendment lawsuits for the sake of punishing speech they found offensive. “It’s worth the risk of lawsuits,” one lawmaker texted.

    In other words, censorship is worth lawsuits. Iowa taxpayers: that’s your free speech rights — and your money — they’re putting at risk.

    On Sept. 23, less than two weeks after the shooting, Iowa State University fired Caitlyn Spencer, a financial aid advisor at the university. Spencer had posted that she believed Kirk “got what was coming” to him and wrote that she was “happy he’s rotting in hell now.” The prominent X account Libs of TikTok picked up Spencer’s post, prompting social media outrage.

    That outrage did not stay confined to the internet. Behind the scenes, Iowa lawmakers urged university officials to take action. The records obtained by FIRE show text messages from state lawmakers to Board of Regents State Relations Officer Jillian Carlson. State Rep. Carter Nordman sent Carlson a screenshot of Spencer’s post, asking, “Will she be put on leave today?” Rep. Taylor Collins added that Spencer “better be” put on leave. 

    After Carlson responded that the university was investigating all complaints they were receiving about social media activity, Collins responded, “There’s no way this is allowed under the Univeristy [sic] code of conduct.” He added: “It is worth the risk of lawsuits.”

    Nordman then expressed frustration at a potential lawsuit, writing, “I am so sick of us scurrying around a law suit. Let them sue.” He added that he and two other individuals were “just fine with [Carlson] telling [ISU] President Wintersteen that’s coming from the House Higher Ed & Budget Chairman’s [sic].”  

    It’s bad enough that lawmakers publicly called for punishment of faculty and staff for their speech about Kirk, including Collins, who was both publicly pushing punishments and sending messages behind the scenes. But Nordman’s mention of the Iowa House Higher Education Committee invoked the power of the committee that controls the funding ISU receives, unsubtly implying that lawmakers were ready to cut budgets if administrators did not comply with their demands to punish speech. And given their talk about lawsuits, it’s clear that they had doubts about whether punishing the speech would violate the First Amendment.

    FIRE has seen this sort of attitude before. For example, when FIRE was poised to file a lawsuit against Kirkwood Community College in 2020 after it moved to terminate a professor for describing himself as “Antifa,” Kirkwood president Lori Sundberg told a media outlet there was “no evidence” the professor had espoused his controversial views in the classroom. The president remarked, “at the end of the day for me, if I’m found legally wrong on this, I can live with that.” 

    The college eventually settled with the professor for $25,000. Similarly, in 2013, a federal jury held the former president of a public college in Georgia personally liable for violating the rights of a student who protested against the building of two parking garages on campus. There, the student and the university reached a $900,000 settlement after a lengthy court battle, as the court ruled that the president had ignored the student’s “clearly established constitutional right to notice and a hearing before being removed from VSU.” 

    Those fired over protected comments about Kirk’s assassination could be looking at similar payouts, courtesy of the tax- and tuition-payers of Iowa.

    While Kirk’s murder has divided Americans across the board, one thing should unite them all: Iowans — and Americans more broadly — shouldn’t be on the hook for public officials’ decisions to ignore the First Amendment. 

    Source link

  • LAWSUIT: Ex-cop sues after spending 37 days in jail for sharing meme following Charlie Kirk murder

    LAWSUIT: Ex-cop sues after spending 37 days in jail for sharing meme following Charlie Kirk murder

    NASHVILLE, Dec. 17, 2025 — On Sept. 21, the police came for Larry Bushart. They handcuffed him and hauled him away in the dead of night. He spent 37 days in jail while held on a $2 million bond — an amount the retired police officer could not afford.

    It’s the sort of treatment one expects for accused murderers and thieves. But Larry’s only “crime”? In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, he posted a meme on Facebook quoting President Trump’s remarks about a different shooting a year earlier and in a different state.

    “I spent over three decades in law enforcement, and have the utmost respect for the law,” said Larry. “But I also know my rights, and I was arrested for nothing more than refusing to be bullied into censorship.”

    Today, with the help of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Larry filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Sheriff Nick Weems and Perry County, Tennessee, for violating his constitutional rights in retaliation for his protected speech. 

    The meme that Larry Bushart shared on Facebook.

    “If police can come to your door in the middle of the night and put you behind bars based on nothing more than an entirely false and contrived interpretation of a Facebook post, no one’s First Amendment rights are safe,” said FIRE senior attorney Adam Steinbaugh.

    Larry’s ordeal began when he commented on a Facebook post for a Kirk vigil in Perry County. The meme — which Larry did not create — used a picture of Donald Trump, quoted him saying “We have to get over it” following the January 2024 school shooting at Perry High School in Iowa, and included the commentary, “This seems relevant today…”

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF LARRY FOR MEDIA USE

    Weems concocted the pretext that because the meme referenced the 2024 shooting at Perry High School in Iowa, it could be interpreted as a threat against Perry County High School in Tennessee. At his request, the local police first visited Larry’s home around 8 p.m. to inform him the sheriff’s office might be in contact with him.

    Bodycam footage indicates the officer was just as confused as Larry was. “So I’m going to be completely honest with you, I have really no idea what they’re talking about,” he said. “He just called me and said there were some concerning posts that were made… I don’t know, I just know they said something was insinuating violence.”

    “No it wasn’t,” Larry responded. “I’m not going to take it down.”

    Hours later, Perry County issued a warrant for his arrest, and local police returned after 11 p.m. to arrest him for “threatening mass violence at a school.” Again, bodycam footage indicates local police were just as perplexed about why they were taking him into custody. “I threatened no one . . .” Larry told them. “I may have been an asshole, but . . .”

    “. . . that’s not illegal,” the officer finished for him.

    Based on Weems’ flimsy justification alone, Larry was locked up for over a month. He lost his job and missed his wedding anniversary as well as the birth of his grandchild. Amazingly, Weems admitted in a later interview that he knew at the time of the arrest that Larry’s post used a pre-existing meme and was not threatening a local high school.  But law enforcement left out that extremely important context from their warrant application. 

    Larry went free only after a media firestorm and widespread backlash. Weems still insisted he was justified in having Larry arrested because the post caused “mass hysteria” in the community. But none of the Facebook responses to Larry interpreted his post as a threat, the Perry County school district has no records of any complaints about Larry’s post, and Perry County and Weems have refused to respond to multiple public records requests requesting evidence of this “mass hysteria.”

    With FIRE’s help, Larry is suing Perry County and Weems in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee for violating his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful seizure. Larry is also suing Investigator Jason Morrow who, on Weems’ orders, helped procure the misleading arrest warrant. And because Weems and Morrow knew their actions were egregiously unconstitutional, FIRE is suing them in their personal capacities, meaning they would be on the hook for monetary damages. Rounding out Larry’s legal team is Phillips and Phillips, PLLC, in Lexington, TN, which also defended Larry in criminal court.  

    “This lawsuit goes beyond Larry,” said FIRE attorney David Rubin. “It’s about making sure police everywhere understand that they cannot punish or intimidate people for sharing controversial opinions online. Law enforcement across the country should be on notice: Respect the First Amendment, or prepare to face the consequences.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them. 

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • LAWSUIT: Tennessee state employee sues after unlawful firing for Charlie Kirk post

    LAWSUIT: Tennessee state employee sues after unlawful firing for Charlie Kirk post

    • Monica Meeks is a combat veteran and lifelong public servant fired for criticizing Charlie Kirk from her personal Facebook shortly after his assassination.
    • Under the First Amendment, public employers can’t fire people simply because the government doesn’t approve of their off-duty speech.
    • FIRE is suing the Tennessee Commissioner of Commerce and Insurance on Monica’s behalf, seeking reinstatement and damages.

    NASHVILLE, Dec. 10, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of Monica Meeks, a Tennessee public employee unlawfully fired from her state government job solely for criticizing Charlie Kirk in a Facebook comment after his assassination.

    “Our democracy suffers when public employees fear to voice what they are free to think,” said FIRE senior attorney Greg Greubel. “There are more than 23 million government employees across the country — and they can’t be fired simply because their boss or folks online don’t like the opinions they share off the clock.”

    After serving 20 years in the U.S. Army, including a tour of duty in Iraq, Monica joined the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance in 2016. Since joining the department, Monica has received stellar performance reviews and regular raises.

    “I’ve never backed down from a fight in my life, and I don’t plan to start now,” said Monica. “I took an oath to defend the Constitution. Now, it’s time to stand up for it again.”

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF MONICA FOR MEDIA

    In her private life, Monica is politically engaged and even ran for the Tennessee House of Representatives in 2022 as an independent candidate. In her free time, she enjoys joking around and trading hot takes with her old Army “battle buddies” on Facebook. After the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Monica responded to a friend’s post about Kirk with the remark, “The way you tap dance for White Supremacist should be studied!”

    Monica’s post was never intended to go further than two friends amiably sparring over politics — as millions of Americans do every day. But the post escaped her personal circle, and she quickly became swept up in the wave of cancellation attempts that followed the Kirk assassination.

    Only 15 or so X accounts called for Monica to be fired in response to an unrelated post by the Department on the afternoon of September 12. That includes comments marked as “probable spam,” and posts from anonymous accounts like “Bonerville Asskicker” and “NonGMOKaren.” But Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance Commissioner Carter Lawrence publicly announced her firing mere hours later, and sent a termination letter to Monica’s inbox. Lawrence’s letter mentioned no other performance issues whatsoever, nor any disruption to department operations, and made clear he was firing Monica solely for her lone “inflammatory and insulting comment” on Facebook.

    “You may disagree with Monica’s take on Charlie Kirk. But letting a few angry individuals get a public employee fired for off-the-clock speech, even when it has no impact on the workplace, will inevitably boomerang back on people with views you do support,” said FIRE staff attorney Cary Davis. “When public employees are forced into silence for fear of offending someone on the internet, we all lose.”

    Lawrence’s rush to fire Monica violated Supreme Court precedent, which established a three-prong test to determine when a government employee’s speech is constitutionally protected and cannot be punished by the state. First, the employee must speak “as a citizen” rather than as an employee. Second, the speech must involve “a matter of public concern.” Third, the employee’s interest in exercising their right to free expression must outweigh the state’s interest in ensuring effective government operations.

    Monica’s post easily clears all three hurdles:

    1. Monica clearly went to great lengths to establish that she was speaking as a private citizen. Her Facebook had a disclaimer that her views were hers and hers alone, and her profile didn’t even mention that she worked for the department.
    2. Monica’s post obviously involved a matter of public concern. The fact that others might vehemently disagree with her view of Kirk doesn’t change the fact that it was a major news story with political reverberations across the country.
    3. There is no evidence Monica’s post had any disruptive effect on the department or her work for it. Lawrence’s letter cited complaints about the post by members of the public, but there’s no evidence any coworkers complained, or that her opinions on Kirk would in any way impede her ability to investigate financial services fraud. It was hostility to Monica’s politics that drove the decision — not any legitimate government concern.

    FIRE is asking the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to find that Lawrence retaliated against Monica for exercising her clearly established First Amendment rights, and to award her damages and reinstate her to her position. And because Lawrence clearly disregarded her constitutional rights, FIRE is also seeking punitive damages for Monica. Melody Fowler-Green of Yezbak Law Offices is serving as local counsel in the case. 

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • FIRE poll: 90% of undergrads believe words can be violence even after killing of Charlie Kirk

    FIRE poll: 90% of undergrads believe words can be violence even after killing of Charlie Kirk

    • Nine out of ten undergrads believe that “words can be violence”
    • Differences in views becoming more stark between liberal and conservative students

    PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 2, 2025 — Ninety one percent of undergraduate students believe that words can be violence, according to a new poll by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and College Pulse.

    The survey’s findings are especially startling coming in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination — an extreme and tragic example of the sharp difference between words and violence.

    “When people start thinking that words can be violence, violence becomes an acceptable response to words,” said FIRE Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “Even after the murder of Charlie Kirk at a speaking event, college students think that someone’s words can be a threat. This is antithetical to a free and open society, where words are the best alternative to political violence.”

    The new 21-question poll, conducted between Oct. 3-31 by FIRE and College Pulse, assessed free speech on campus in the wake of Kirk’s assassination at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10 and asked undergraduates about their comfort level with a number of controversial topics. The survey of 2,028 undergrads included an oversample of 204 students at Utah Valley, and has a margin of error of +/- 2%. 

    Half of students surveyed say that because of what happened to Kirk, they are now less comfortable attending or hosting controversial public events on their campus, and one in five say they are less comfortable attending class. 

    Other findings show stark differences between students at Utah Valley and other schools, as well as widening rifts between liberal and conservative students:

    • When asked whether the country is headed in the right or wrong direction for people’s ability to freely express their views, 84% of Utah Valley students said “wrong direction,” significantly higher than the 73% reported by students at other schools.
    • Moderate and conservative students across the country became significantly less likely to say that shouting down a speaker, blocking entry to an event, or using violence to stop a campus speech are acceptable actions. In contrast, liberal students’ support for these tactics held steady, or even increased slightly.
    • Among moderate and conservative students, opposition to controversial speakers generally declined. Opposition among liberal students, on the other hand, either held steady or increased for all of the controversial speakers compared to the spring.

    The gaps between conservative and liberal students may be widening, but some concerns transcend politics. A majority of students of all persuasions (53%) say that political violence is a problem among all groups, considerably more than the 35% of Americans who recently said this in FIRE’s October National Speech Index. 

    “Students want to feel safe, and the killing of Charlie Kirk naturally eroded their sense of safety,” said Stevens. “What we want students to recognize is that the safest environment is one in which people can speak their minds without fear of censorship or violence.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    Katie Stalcup, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • FAU Reinstates 2 Faculty on Leave for Charlie Kirk Comments

    FAU Reinstates 2 Faculty on Leave for Charlie Kirk Comments

    One professor remains under investigation.

    Sandi Smolker/Getty images

    Two professors at Florida Atlantic University are back at work after the university placed them on administrative leave for making comments related to Charlie Kirk’s death, The South Florida Sun Sentinel reported Wednesday. 

    After the right-wing activist was shot and killed Sept. 10 during an event at Utah Valley University, President Donald Trump and his allies sought to punish anyone who made public comments about Kirk that could be perceived as critical. Numerous universities fired or suspended professors, including three at FAU: Karen Leader, an associate professor of art history; Kate Polak, an English professor; and Rebel Cole, a finance professor. 

    While Leader’s and Polak’s comments criticized Kirk, Cole’s comments were directed at Kirk’s opponents. “We are going to hunt you down. We are going to identify you,” he wrote on social media, according to the Sun Sentinel. “Then we are going to make you radioactive to polite society. And we will make you both unemployed and unemployable.”

    While the three professors were on administrative leave, the university hired Alan Lawson, a former Florida Supreme Court justice, to investigate their comments. Lawson has since concluded that Cole’s and Leader’s comments were protected by the First Amendment and recommended they both be reinstated. 

    “The findings reflect that each professor’s social-media statements, though provocative to varying degrees, were authored in a personal capacity on matters of public concern,” Lawson wrote. Although both the FAU Faculty Senate and Cole himself objected to the investigation—Cole sued the university over an alleged First Amendment violation—Lawson’s report said the university “preserved constitutional rights while upholding its responsibility to ensure professionalism, civility, and safety within its academic community.”  

    Polak remains on leave while Lawson continues to investigate her comments.

    Source link

  • Charlie Kirk: Hero of ‘Civil Discourse’ or Fount of Division?

    Charlie Kirk: Hero of ‘Civil Discourse’ or Fount of Division?

    Charlie Kirk: Hero of ‘Civil Discourse’ or Fount of Division?

    Ryan Quinn

    Mon, 09/29/2025 – 03:00 AM

    Pointing to the slain activist’s inflammatory statements about minority groups, some are pushing back—at their own peril—against the right’s framing of him as an emblem of quality discourse.

    Byline(s)
    Ryan Quinn

    Source link

  • Charlie Kirk was a free speech advocate. His death shouldn’t lead to suppression.

    Charlie Kirk was a free speech advocate. His death shouldn’t lead to suppression.

    This article originally appeared in USA Today on Sept. 21, 2025.

    If you’re a believer in free speech, the past two weeks have been one of the longest years of your life. In fact, this might have been the worst fortnight for free expression in recent memory.

    It started Sept. 9, when the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), where I work, released its sixth annual College Free Speech Rankings. The rankings revealed that a record 1 out of 3 students is open to the idea of using violence to stop campus speech.

    This sentiment was then frighteningly made flesh the next day, when conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University. 

    The fact that Kirk was killed while engaging in open debate on a college campus is a cruel irony. If the first person to hurl an insult rather than a spear birthed civilization, then anyone resorting to violence in response to speech is attempting to abort it.

    The free speech principles that are foundational to our democracy have been a candle in the dark – not just here at home, but across a world in the grip of a terrifying resurgence of authoritarianism.

    The difference between words and violence – and the civilizational importance of free speech – couldn’t have been more stark in that moment. No matter how hurtful, hateful or wrong, there is no comparing words to a bullet.

    To preserve that distinction, we must have the highest possible tolerance for even the ugliest speech. But that notion has landed on largely deaf ears, because what followed was a cacophony of cancellations.

    Charlie Kirk was a free speech advocate. His death led to stifled speech.

    Scores of college professors, for example, have either been investigated, suspended or fired for comments they made regarding Kirk’s assassination. Even wildlife conservationists, comic book writers, retail workers and restaurant employees have been targeted for their speech.

    There are many more, and Vice President JD Vance, while stepping in to guest-host “The Charlie Kirk Show,” endorsed these efforts. 

    In some cases, the targeted speech was a criticism of Kirk and his views. In others, it was a celebration of his fate. In all cases, however, it has been First Amendment-protected speech – and far from violence.

    The government pressure didn’t end there, either. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins called for “a legal and rational crackdown on the forces that are desperately trying to annihilate our nation.”

    Carr’s threats to ABC are jawboning any way you slice it

    ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel hours after FCC Chair Brendan Carr suggested they could face consequences for remarks Kimmel made in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder.


    Read More

    On Sept. 15, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi went on “The Katie Miller Podcast” and threatened, “There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech. . . . We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

    Given that there is no First Amendment exception or legal definition for “hate speech,” this can mean just about anything Bondi and President Donald Trump‘s administration consider “hateful.” Bondi walked back her comments after public outcry, notably from conservatives.

    The president, however, ran with it, threatening an ABC News reporter for having covered him “unfairly.” “You have a lot of hate in your heart,” Trump said Sept. 16. “Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech. So maybe they’ll have to go after you.”

    Then Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr publicly threatened action against host Jimmy Kimmel and ABC for “really sick” comments Kimmel made during his opening monologue. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said.

    Hours later, ABC suspended Kimmel’s show indefinitely, prompting celebration from Trump, Carr and others – and driving us from a free speech nightmare into a full-on hellscape.

    Social discourse needs a reset in America

    This is unsustainable.

    In the past two weeks alone, the state of free speech in our country has been battered almost beyond recognition.

    For years now, we have had a cultural climate where growing numbers of people are so intolerant of opposing viewpoints that they will resort to violence, threats and cancellation against their adversaries. Now we’re seeing the Trump administration flagrantly abusing its power and authority to punish criticism and enforce ideological conformity. 

    Yes, plenty of previous administrations have violated the First Amendment. But rather than repudiating those violations, the Trump administration’s actions over the past week have dramatically escalated how openly and aggressively that constitutional line is crossed.

    The core American belief that power is achieved through persuasion and the ballot box, and that bad ideas are beaten by better ones – not by bullets or bullying – is in serious danger.

    As former federal Judge Learned Hand once put it: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.”

    That’s what’s at stake here: The free speech principles that are foundational to our democracy have been a candle in the dark – not just here at home, but across a world in the grip of a terrifying resurgence of authoritarianism.

    The ultimate tragedy would be if we extinguished them in our own hearts and by our own hands.

    Source link

  • SLJ Founder Alan Collinge talks about Charlie Kirk & his connection to the Student Loan Debt Crisis

    SLJ Founder Alan Collinge talks about Charlie Kirk & his connection to the Student Loan Debt Crisis







    Higher Education Inquirer : SLJ Founder Alan Collinge talks about Charlie Kirk & his connection to the Student Loan Debt Crisis




    Source link

  • The Martyrdom of Charlie Kirk (Mike Malloy)

    The Martyrdom of Charlie Kirk (Mike Malloy)

    Source link