Since Charlie Kirk’s killing, the government has threatened to punish anyone who speaks ill of the conservative free speech activist. This violates the First Amendment.
Vera Eidelman, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project
Ben Wizner, Director, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project
(Originally published by ACLU)
The Trump administration is enthusiastically abusing its power to intimidate anyone who criticizes its policies, and to silence those who won’t fall in line. Now, using a long-standing government tactic, the administration is leveraging a tragedy to justify its censorship campaign.
The government is villainizing and threatening to punish anyone who dares to express anything but unequivocal support for its political views. In the last week, lawmakers have bullied schools into taking disciplinary action against teachers who have criticized Charlie Kirk’s political views. Police officers are being put on leave for similar reasons. Federal agencies are disciplining public servants for expressing views contrary to those supported by the administration. Journalists and the media companies they work for have also felt a McCarthy-like pressure from the government, with popular late-night hosts losing their jobs after engaging with the ideas of a free speech provocateur whose tagline was “Prove me wrong.”
This forceful crackdown is part of a troubling pattern we’ve seen emerge during the Trump administration. In the last week alone, administration officials — including Vice President JD Vance, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and Attorney General Pam Bondi — have encouraged the public to call the employers of anyone expressing views disfavored by the government; vowed to use every resource the Department of Justice and Homeland Security have to identify, disrupt, and destroy groups the administration perceives to be an enemy; and claimed that “there’s free speech and then there’s hate speech” while threatening to “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
For more than 105 years, the ACLU has defended the First Amendment as a cornerstone of our democracy, protecting every person’s right to speak out by ensuring the government does not use times of crisis — or labels like hate speech — as an excuse to censor views it doesn’t like. For that reason, the ACLU has unwaveringly defended the speech rights of everyone, from communists, Nazis, and Ku Klux Klan members to people accused of terrorism, climate change protesters, and gun rights organizations, to pornography companies, flag burners, and civil rights leaders.
This might seem radical to some, but as “In Defense of American Liberties,” a book about the history of the ACLU, once explained, “Critics who accuse the ACLU of taking the Bill of Rights to extremes are, in effect, voicing a more fundamental complaint about the Constitution, the courts, and some of the deepest impulses in American society.”
Our dogged, nonpartisan history of protecting civil liberties for all is what allows us to speak with authority in this tense moment and raise the alarm about the censorship campaign the Trump administration is trying to wage against the public.
At a moment when the government is using every tool at its disposal to push ideological conformity, here are five reminders about your First Amendment rights:
- The First Amendment protects the rights to free speech, belief, and association. The government may not retaliate against people or groups because they are criticizing someone’s political views — especially when the government is trying to silence views it doesn’t like.
- Censorship doesn’t change minds, but open conversation and debate do. To protect public debate, the First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing speech even when it is controversial or offensive. The Supreme Court put it best in Texas v. Johnson (1989): “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Without that level of protection, any “debate” would be stale and stilted, taking away the opportunity for people to discuss ideas, persuade others, or make up their own minds.
- American law does not recognize “hate speech” as a legal category. While the First Amendment does not protect incitement — speech that is intended and likely to cause imminent violence, as established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, litigated by the ACLU — or true threats, an expression of a serious intent to commit a violent act against another person, speech considered to be hateful is not enough to qualify. Indeed, whether speech is hateful is typically a matter of opinion. As Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II said in Cohen v. California (1971), “one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric.” Posting an offensive joke or condemning someone else’s views in harsh terms is generally protected by the First Amendment, regardless of how much someone else doesn’t want to hear it.
- The government cannot and should not respond to violence by infringing on First Amendment rights. Politically motivated killings not only take a loved one from their family and community, but also endanger the free and democratic exchange of ideas. Government actors should not further entrench that danger by using their power to suggest that certain ideas or criticism cannot be uttered in our society.
- Government officials calling for people who expressed their political views to lose their jobs or face other punishment is unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court ruled just last year in NRA v. Vullo — a case where a Democratic government official was pressuring businesses not to work with the NRA — government officials can’t use their power to pressure third parties into silencing or punishing speech they dislike. Full stop. Employers, media companies, and even state and local officials facing such pressure should remember that the First Amendment protects them from having to give in.
As history has shown, government actors seize on moments of tragedy and fear to impose ideological conformity. Such censorship is profoundly harmful to a free society — but it can be stopped if we stand together.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Remember when Tucker Carlson and Rosanne Barr were “let go” of their jobs?
Remember when leftists were doxing conservatives because of their views and demanding that their employers fire them?
Remember when parents were speaking out at school board meetings and the authorities were acting on silencing them?
Remember when a petition was circulated demanding that UC Davis fire Beth Bourne for her views?
https://www.change.org/p/demand-uc-davis-fire-beth-bourne
Alito, 2024: “But government officials may not coerce private entities to suppress speech … and that is what happened in this case.”
Are you saying Trump was responsible for Kimmel losing his job?
I think what we’re seeing is private citizens standing up and holding people responsible for what they say on platforms like Twitter and Facebook.
I remember when you weren’t allowed to comment on the fact that Covid came out of the Wuhan Lab and if you tried to post a NY Post article about Hunter’s laptop is was taken down.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/business/media/disney-abc-jimmy-kimmel.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Look, in 2017 I was on the UC Davis campus warning folks after Milo was shut down that this day would come and no one really wanted to listen. The truth is that this country for all its pride in free speech has practice what Nat Hentoff said, “Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee” which I think encapsulates this debate to a “t”.
But there’s nothing new. Oliver Wendall Holmes who is now consider the patron saint of free speech had a very fraught record on it before they went after Harold Laski and Felix Frankfurter.
That’s not even to bring up the red scares and the McCarthy era.
This is not a recent thing.
But the problem is it’s getting worse to the point where free speech might as well be dead in this country.
“But the problem is it’s getting worse to the point where free speech might as well be dead in this country.”
I don’t think it’s any worse than what was happening under Biden.
While I don’t disagree with you Keith, do two wrongs make a right?
With that said and asked, one difference I see is that the suppression of free speech during Biden’s four years was coming as a result of citizen collective action, while the current suppression of free speech is coming from authoritarian governmental action.
“Are you saying Trump was responsible for Kimmel losing his job?”
100% yes.
“On Wednesday, before ABC yanked Kimmel’s show, [FCC Chair] Carr called Kimmel’s comments “truly sick” and said there was a “strong case” for action against ABC and Disney.
“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr told right-wing commentator Benny Johnson that day. “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
“They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest,” Carr said.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/18/jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-fcc-carr.html
Or this:
ABC had to take action because the largest owner of local TV stations in the U.S. Nexstar Media Group said that it would be removing the show from its ABC affiliate stations.
The thing about free speech is that the government is not supposed to suppress it. People seem to believe these days that they can say anything anywhere by any method at any time and it should not have consequences. That is not what free speech is. When one speaks, they should consider the consequences of their speech, on them and on others. Those terminated for celebrating the political assassination of Charlie Kirk should have realized their employers may not want people like them in their employ.
Well said Alan.
The concern here is to what extent this is a private decision versus to what extent this was a result of threats said and unsaid from the administration. It’s problematic. (Also from a personal standpoint I tend to believe BOTh sides are to quick to censor – it’s a bit ironic given the debate from the last week).
As reported today: “ President Trump has floated the possibility that TV broadcasters could lose their federal licenses over what he perceives as negative coverage of him, a day after Disney’s ABC yanked “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air. Trump suggested that the Federal Communications Commission should revoke broadcasters’ licenses, arguing that many late-night hosts appearing on those networks are “against me” and that “they give me only bad publicity, press.” Trump also said of evening shows on network TV: “All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that. They’re an arm of the Democrat Party.”
Read more: https://nbcnews.to/3K8MqKy
To me that gives credence that there is at least an implicit and you could probably say an explicit threat.
Or maybe because Kimmel is not funny and his ratings were in the toilet so when Nexstar refused to air his show ABC saw the writing on the wall and decided to cut ties?
I too am concerned the line is being blurred. To me the line is clear, but elements on the right are doing to the left what they accused, I believe ‘rightly’ (no pun intended), the left was doing to the right during cancel culture’s peak. If one stands on principle rather than beliefs, there should be no problem. But it seems many don’t want to stand on principle so much as see this time as an opportunity for revenge. And thus why I am deeply concerned about our society for the last half-decade, but ever increasingly.
That is precisely what I see happening, and I kept warning the left that this was gonna come back and bite them. But now the shoe is on the other foot.
I find it difficult to believe that Trump and his associates aren’t taking the “high road”.
(Yes, that’s another joke.)
But on a more serious note, I see that Pam Bondi is (appropriately) receiving some pretty harsh criticism from some conservatives regarding going after those who put forth “hate speech”.
It’s pretty concerning when the attorney general doesn’t acknowledge that “hate speech” is usually “protected speech”.
It seems that the ACLU isn’t too concerned that Charlie Kirk’s free speech rights were “curtailed” by a non-government entity.
Absurd statement
The ACLU lost its way a long time ago, at this point. Much like a lot of environmental organizations have.
Neither of those underlying missions are necessarily “progressive” issues, but these organizations are essentially social justice organizations, at this point (with a “side order” consisting of their original missions). It’s not difficult to see this in most of the Vanguard articles regarding the ACLU.
It is generally true that the type of people attracted to the ACLU and environmental organizations tend to be social justice advocates, but at this point – the inmates have taken over the asylum. There’s been a blending of issues that didn’t previously exist, and they discourage anyone who doesn’t share that vision from being involved with them. (The latter is true regarding environmental organizations, at least.)
Your opinion
I can point to objectively-verifiable facts, at this point. Not an “opinion”.
You can find some of it on their own social media and websites, for that matter. As well as in multiple Vanguard articles (in regard to the ACLU, at least).
It actually started a long time ago, but has intensified since (perhaps) the George Floyd incident. And now, some of them are in a rather harsh defensive mode as a result of Trump’s election.
I vaguely seem to recall that it started with the Sierra Club several decades ago, when some of the leadership at the time were focused on population growth. While other leaders thought that this type of concern would be viewed as racist. (Guess which side “won” that conflict.)
And at this point, that type of conflict might be viewed as “quaint” in regard to their complete alliance with social justice these days.
Then you don’t know what opinion means. (Hint: just because you have facts to back it up doesn’t mean it’s not an opinion – it just might be a well grounded opinion – this one isn’t). Also I doubt you know the history of the ACLU well enough to have that kind of opinion.
I’ll go a step further, this is the exact scenario in which Roger Baldwin created the ACLU.
Again, I can point you to specific websites and (especially) social media sites which show that environmental groups are quite focused on “social justice”.
And not just words – but actions – like massive land giveaways to tribes on a scale that would surprise most people. (Mainstream media is complicit regarding their lack of reporting regarding this. The state also supports it, in conjunction with environmental groups. Taxpayer dollars used to purchase land given to tribes – which are essentially “private clubs” (and are not open to all of those with native heritage in the first place). A recent example of this consists of hundreds of acres along the Marin coast given to a local, politically-connected casino owning tribe. Newsom himself appointed the leader of that tribe to the Board of Regents.
Let me know if you want me to provide details regarding any of this.
As far as the ACLU is concerned, I don’t recall them supporting Charlie Kirk (or speaking out regarding his murder). But I’m pretty sure I can point to several Vanguard articles authored by those at the ACLU which actually seem to CONFLICT with their mission.
But again your argument is that the ACLU lost its way (exact phasing: “The ACLU lost its way a long time ago, at this point.”), but you can’t get to that argument through Charlie Kirk, you need to understand what the ACLU was and why it was create just over 100 years ago and if you understand that, you will understand that the ACLU is what it always was and was always supposed to be.
AI is your friend, regarding what I’ve noted:
“Yes, the ACLU’s mission and strategic priorities have evolved, with notable shifts in recent years, particularly in its approach to free speech and political engagement. While the core goal of defending constitutional rights remains, the organization now considers the impact of its advocacy on marginalized communities and has become more politically active by running political ads. This evolution reflects a departure from its past emphasis on unbridled defense of all speech and a move towards prioritizing specific outcomes for certain civil liberties.”
(I like that phrase “prioritizing specific outcomes for certain civil liberties”, as it certainly causes one to ponder how they interpret and implement that.)
I don’t particularly feel like digging up all the Vanguard articles (authored by those associated with the ACLU) which are seemingly in opposition to the ACLU’s original mission, but I suspect that you already generally know what I’m referring to. Or if you’d like to spin it, reflect the ACLU’s “evolved” mission.
AI is not doing you a good service. The ACLU has not lost its way because it was always a leftist even radical organization, I tried to point you to who founded it. One of the early board members was Elizabeth Gurley Flynn – she was involved with the radical labor group IWW, Joe Hill and yes, even the communist party. The ACLU was founded in response to the crack down on free speech and labor during the 1910s and the red scare and the Palmer Raids following WWI. In other words, the exact issues that are occurring with respect to government crackdown on speech.
I had more respect for them when they were defending actual Nazis.
You can’t have a political bias AND defend free speech. Those two concepts are inherently at odds with each other. There is no way to avoid “picking a lane” in regard to that inherent conflict.
You’re either for the Constitution and Bill of Rights for everyone, or you’re for it in regard to the people you favor. And increasingly, the ACLU has made its choice.
It’s the same type of conflict that’s caused changes within environmental organizations. (The Trust for Public Land, for example, highlights its campaigns to save inner-city playgrounds. Something that cities are usually responsible for. Once-in-awhile, they screw up and show a photo of a white kid at the playground.
Defending Nazis was always the aberration and mostly it was because they rightly understood the implication if the government could suppress Nazi speech – it’s exactly what we’re seeing now.
DG say, “Your opinion”
My opinion too.
RO, I now support F.I.R.E. while I used to support the ACLU. FIRE essentially filled the shoes of the void left by the degradation of the ACLU into leftist social-justice activism. Their President and CEO is Greg Lukianoff, and he speaks my language of standing on principals above politics. If this country doesn’t start doing this, we are in danger of unraveling.