Charlie Kirk’s Killing Sets off a Censorship Wave Now Threatening Campus Speech
The Trump administration’s First Amendment crackdown in the wake of the activist’s violent death leaves student free speech on even shakier ground.
;)
Education news and commentary, delivered right to your inbox.
Sign up for The 74 newsletter.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
Right-wing political operative Charlie Kirk was discussing one of the most divisive topics in contemporary U.S. politics — school shootings — 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’s 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’s killing has reignited debates around another divisive issue — one that was central to his political identity — and that experts say could now face major upheaval: campus free speech.
First Amendment experts told The 74 Kirk being gunned down — a gruesome moment that was videotaped and — was “the ultimate form of cancel culture.” 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 “desperately trying” to characterize Kirk’s alleged killer “as anything other than one of them.”
It was teachers who were among the first to be singled out for their comments on Kirk’s death.
In Virginia, an educator was reportedly post that said “I hope he suffered through all of it.” In Texas, for suggesting Kirk’s death was the “consequences of his actions.” In Iowa, a teacher was for posting online “1 Nazi down.” South Carolina GOP Rep. Nancy Mace called on the Education Department from any school district that refuses to fire educators who “glorify or justify political violence.”
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.
“Somebody silenced Charlie Kirk and that person probably wanted less speech,” said Goldstein, the vice president of strategic initiatives at the , a nonprofit that advocates for student speech rights. “So if our reaction to that is to start silencing each other, then we’re doing the work of assassins for them.”
Authorities have Kirk for his “political expression.” 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’s “hatred,” and that “some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
Goldstein said censoring political dialogue — even if it’s lewd or offensive — is the wrong approach to Kirk’s 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’s killing remains unknown, research by Goldstein’s group, known as FIRE, points to a — 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 “at least in rare cases,” according to a new FIRE survey released just a day before Kirk’s death. A quarter said they often self-censor around their peers to avoid potential backlash.
The results showed a growing acceptance among students — including those who identify as Republicans — 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’s 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.
At the high school level, shows overwhelming support among students for free speech rights — but the situation becomes complicated with subjects they deem “offensive” or “threatening.”
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.
“People have a right to criticize his views, but that’s different than celebrating his death,” said Calvert, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “If you’re criticizing his views, as a student you’re more likely to be protected because it’s political speech.
“If you’re celebrating his death,” Calvert said, “that’s less likely to be protected.”
Students reject ‘threatening’ 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’s a campus climate
He questioned the , claimed that “Islam is,” 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.
“When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence,” Kirk said in uploaded to social media. “That’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.”
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’s gauged students’ support for the First Amendment since 2004.
In 2024, 27% of survey respondents said their campuses should “protect students by prohibiting speech they may find offensive or biased,” 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’s 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 “should be allowed to express unpopular opinions,” up from a low of 76% in 2007.
Support among high school students fell drastically, however, for speech they deemed “offensive” or “threatening.” Among the high school respondents in 2022, 40% said people should be able to say whatever they want even if it’s 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’s degree reported “excellent” or “good” 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 “poor” speech rights on campus.
‘Witch hunt’
Following Kirk’s death, the Trump administration to search out, identify and harass his social media critics. Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed to “absolutely target” people who engage in “hate speech.” 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’s assasination. The reviews came after Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath said the agency would and encouraged the public to file complaints.
“While 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,” Morath wrote in the letter last week.
The Texas American Federation of Teachers has condemned the investigations, which the group called a “political witch hunt.” Union President Zeph Capo said the letter amounted to “a statewide directive to hunt down and fire educators for opinions shared on their personal social media accounts.”
“It’s no surprise that, here in Texas, the purge of civil servants starts with teachers,” Capo said in a statement. “If 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.”
Colleges have faced similar scrutiny. The American Association of University Professors, a nonprofit trade association for college educators, said it was alarmed by “the rash of recent administrative actions to discipline faculty, staff and student speech.” In Trump’s second term, higher education — and — has been among the president’s top targets.
“At a moment when higher education is threatened by forces that seek to destroy it and its role in a democratic society,” the group said in a statement, “the anticipatory obedience shown by this rush to judgment must be avoided.”
In , Calvert of the University of Florida notes that the First Amendment protects educators against censorship by their public school employers — “but those rights are not absolute.” At play is an educator’s interest in speaking as a private citizen versus school leaders’ “interest in an efficient, disruption-free workplace.”
If a teacher revels in Kirk’s death on social media, he told The 74, “that’s clearly going to disrupt that educational environment and interfere with it.”
“In this case, it’s a public school trying to teach students effectively and you can imagine if you were a Kirk supporter, you’d say, ‘I can’t take this class from this professor or this teacher, he or she has posted online celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death,’” Calvert said.
Goldstein of FIRE challenged Bondi’s early assertions that hate speech was criminal, noting the concept is “something we made up to describe a bunch of words we don’t like,” but lacks a legal definition. While he’s seen gleeful online commentary about Kirk’s killing, he said he hasn’t come across any that breach the free-speech threshold of being or
“Much of what I’ve seen I would characterize as unkind, mocking, maybe uncharitable in the moment,” he said, but not calls for violence “that are likely to be received by an audience willing to do it.” In fact, he said the First Amendment was specifically designed to protect the rights of citizens to hold unpopular beliefs.
“As 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’s no reason to censor that,” Goldstein said. “Speech that we hate is precisely the kind of thing the First Amendment is concerned with protecting.”
Yet, with the government’s endorsement of censorship in the wake of Kirk’s death comes a tinge of irony. Prior to being killed reportedly for his beliefs, Kirk held an absolutist position on the First Amendment.
“Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech.
And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.
Keep America free.”
Did you use this article in your work?
We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.
