The Republicans are in honor of the Charlie Kirk’s memory by declaring war at the first amendment

Holding principled commitment to the first amendment is a challenge. In spite of that, it is Bemusing to watch the Republican Party – which was conducted for years require legal coverage for Sending spam, Sabotaging of public healthand Avoiding social media moderation – Run much wide wide against him over the past week.

Authorities are just beginning to parse what was motivated by the man Utah to accuse the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk – an act, obviously, unjustifiable violence. But the consequence is of an extraordinarily political torch. Within a few days, Donald Trump crossed the blame on the feet of people who had Kirk’s brand was criticized Inflammatory gearful policies and said that they will “find each of those who contributed to this crimes and other political violence, including organizations that are financed and supported.” Republican legislators He immediately proposed a board To explore “money, influence and power behind the attack of radical left to America and the rule of law” and the rule of law. “

The fever continued to build, reaching the level of completely absurdity. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who praised in X in 2019 years that he “signed a law that protects free speech on campuses at the faculty”, “she used a platform on Sunday celebrate the arrest and the expulsion of Texas Tech Student who was recorded celebration Kirk’s death in the campus “free speech area.”

Kirk positioned very well as the first amendment of absolutist, emphasizes 2024 x Post That “hate speech does not exist legally in America. There is ugly speech. There is gross speech. It is all protected by the first amendment.” Was bright attacking attacks and denied other victims of violence including George Floyd and Paul Pelosidemonstrating his legal right to that.

This morning, General Lawyer Pam Bondi was honored Kirk’s memory, appearing to completely oppose it. “There is a free speech, and then there is a hate speech and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society” Bondi said on Katie Miller Podcast. He asked whether law enforcement would take action, it seemed to agree, “We will absolute you, if you target anyone with hate speech.”

Bondi has Since it was published on K That she will go after “hate speech exceeding the line in threats of violence” and violates laws against tangible threats. Her clarification was a little trimmed Trump’s Flippy Answer Reporter who asked about the statement. “You would probably go for people like you, because you treat me so unfair, it’s hate,” ABC news correspondent, continuing that he might “come after ABC.”

Others ruled the line targeted by violence rather than a speech. The White House spokesman said Abigail Jackson said Edge That Trump statement simply meant “the perpetrator or perpetrators of this horrible act will pay what they did.” Vice President JD Vance took Kirk’s podcast Alongside deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to declare that “We’re Going to Go After The Ngo Network That Fomests, Facilitates, and Engages in Violence,” But Mocked “Crazies On The Far Left” for Fearing They would Target Constitutionally Protected Speech. Miller stated that he would attack “organized doxing campaigns, organized campaigns from dehumanization, fueled popular addresses, combining messages designed to launch, encourage violence in real cells and facilitate violence.”

It has stated the context, it is naive to think that these statements mean anything but went after media, non-profit groups and political organizations for their speech and fundraising – especially because it was management You already do just that Before Kirk. We saw that no indication of the alleged killer Tyler Robinson was related to an organized political group, let alone planned an abusive attack. (There is no indication radicalized by legal speech than a particular person or exit, the way in which racist The roof of mass shooters Dylan described Finding a White Supramacist Website and would like right-wing bomber Cesar Saioc He said he was inspired by Trump.)

Anyone who follows American politics will see this comes. Trump stored his administration with people who have a sharp disrespect for US tradition in speech, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Federal Communication Chairman Brendan Carr – Although obviously the latter thoughts This latest order is too far, even for him. Trump has submitted numerous frivolous suits against the widest places that covered it rude or covering opponents in the way he thought it was too positive – including Fresh lawsuit against The New York Times this week – Strong weapons in settlements.

Kirk was correct that hate speech in the United States, beyond narrow exceptions, including true threats and encouraging, is in fact legally. While watching the misogynist, anti-lgbtk and white supremacist rhetoric spread online and in the real world in recent years, it was sometimes a painful principle for anyone who oppose actual hate speech to be held. He felt the academicament sometimes warning to ban awful, encouraging rhetoric on violence could cause more damage than it would solve it.

But America is closer than the first amendments remained in decades, and it is not happening to combat groups related to acts of violence or online communities that are largely largely for the lower hatred of vulnerable people or pandites. This is done to prevent Americans from saying bad public political figures, one of the most important examples of which a robust law of speech should be protected.

The inevitable request is that the “left” first leaves the first amendment and justifies that retaliation. Going aside that even by accidentally border examples of the democratic government work of the police – like the Biden administration Shouting on the social media platform – are flying compared to Trump anti-speech lawsuits or people to write optia disappearIt is not the chief of principles.

Is ugly speech so intoxicated that the law should treat the way the action? Or will it banna prevent people from being expressed in productive ways? If it is a former, whether a reasonable person honestly believes that someone is to make Charlie Kirk Joke is more dangerous than Linsktok’s duration of school allocation and hospitals that inevitably receive Threat bombOr than Trump is encouraging attempts to attack 6. January to American Capitol?

And for people who bring They had reasonable, long-term criticism of the first amendment – I did not see any of them cheering these attacking attacks on it, so Kudos on it. But we get a collision course in all the risks of opening the door into a speech limitation. Will there be a future in which everyone can apply those classes? I’m not sure.