Freedom of Speech
On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was assassinated. I wish I had not watched the video that showed the murder. I watched it because I wanted to know if everything that was written about the event was true--because these days it's hard to believe anything I read or hear. However, viewing that video was a mistake. I never imagined the horror.
The confessed murderer--assassin is too polite a term for what the man did--disagreed with Charlie Kirk's speech. Instead of voicing his disagreement, this man shot Charlie Kirk. It was a weak, cowardly, despicable act.
I object to much of Charlie Kirk's speech--the ideas he advanced--but I'm content to be peaceful in my disagreement, to write civilly about my differences. I can be appalled, horrified, by what happened to Charlie Kirk and still object to his speech. From what I've read in the last few days, Charlie Kirk would welcome my disagreement and would try to change my mind.
What is it that I found offensive about Charlie Kirk's speech? What is it that made him a controversial figure? There's a lot, so very much. One area where we would agree is the need for civil discourse, the need to talk about disagreement and not engage in violence. The gap between Charlie Kirk's idea of right and wrong, and my idea is more like a chasm. Likewise, there is a gulf between what he believed the Constitution allowed and disallowed, and what I believe that document provides for.
I have a right to speak about my disagreement here. I have a right that Charlie Kirk endorsed. It would be wrong, according to this young man, to force me to agree with him, to force me to fall in line. By voicing my disagreement I am honoring his memory.
It came to my attention (to everybody's attention?) that Congress floated a resolution to honor Charlie Kirk's memory. It also came to my attention that many in Congress demurred and would not sign onto the wording of that resolution. What did it say?
Mostly it said what most of us would agree on: it extended sympathy to his family. It condemned violence; it endorsed free speech. Buried in these what I consider to be statements of universal truth, were a few land mines. In its preamble it asserted that Charlie Kirk sought to 'elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the republic'.
What if the representatives in Congress didn't believe that he spoke the truth, and they didn't believe that he tried to foster understanding? For example, he said of four prominent black women (Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Joy Reid): " You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously." One can see how some might think this statement was not true. They might think it did not foster understanding. In the view of many people, Charlie Kirk's statement was hurtful and highly divisive. I personally find it to be so. One can see how congressional representatives would not want to endorse such sentiments.
By declining to sign on to the resolution the representatives were exerting their right to free speech.
Did Charlie Kirk strengthen, or try to strengthen the republic? I guess the answer to that depends on how we view our republic. In his view, strides toward equal justice harmed the country. He said that Martin Luther King, advocate for peace and harmony between the races, was a bad guy. You can see why some congressional representatives might think his point of view weakened the republic.
In my view, our republic is stronger when we all live together in harmony. Not only did Charlie Kirk devalue the worth of Martin Luther King, but he thought the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake.
Let me pause for a moment here for a personal anecdote as I share the importance of that statute in my own life.
When I was hired for a government job in 1970, I found the papers that had been cut for my job did not describe the position I had applied for and accepted. These papers mentioned a position that was like mine. However, the job title had a suffix added to it, 'ess'. What did that mean, I asked after a few weeks had passed. I was told the position was designed exclusively for women. That position had been carved out of the other job, the one men could hold. The job for women had limited functions and limited promotion potential.
The situation didn't seem right to me at all. It seemed downright discriminatory. I said, in response to their explanation, that they were in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I threatened to sue on that basis.
Here is the wording from the relevant clause in the statute as it applied to my hiring (Title VII, Section 703):
(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer–
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
One of Charlie Kirk's assertions in referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was that passage had led to a “permanent DEI-type bureaucracy". More accurately, one could say that when I was hired, men were benefiting from a DEI-type bureaucracy. The Civil Rights Act simply tried to level the playing field.
I was super qualified for that job, the job for which I had applied, and was more qualified than many of my peers. Many of them didn't have a college degree and many couldn't speak any foreign languages, which were important on that job. I claimed both qualifications.
The result of my complaint was that the 'ess' job was eliminated and I was given the position I had applied for.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a sweeping law, with protections for millions of people, people of all races, all backgrounds. I'm grateful for it. That law, in my opinion, strengthens the republic, at least the kind of republic promised in the Declaration of Independence, one that offers life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Going back to the Congressional Resolution, we can see where it was difficult for many representatives to sign on, as it was written. The resolution should simply have been a document that expressed grief at his passing and that extended sympathy to the family. However, as written, the statement was politicized. It included value-weighted words that not everyone could honestly agree with.
Today, in this post, I offer my condolences to Charlie Kirk's family. I grieve that this young man was struck down in the prime of his life. I reject the hatred the murderer felt. I affirm the value of Charlie Kirk's approach to disagreement. He believed in dialogue, and in peaceful persuasion.
I will resist, probably for the rest of my life, many of Charlie Kirk's teachings, but I will not resist his message of peace. I will not resist his message of discourse. I wish his family well. I wish for his wife continued passionate pursuit of his causes. I heard today that she rejects revenge. I applaud her, and admire her position. I hope her behavior sets an example for everyone who admired the principles espoused by Charlie Kirk.
IMAGES
Constitution
Wikimages from Pixabay
Lyndon Johnson
Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Based on everything I am hearing, all of the horrible stuff that people think he said were all taken out of context. I have yet to see anyone give context, they just bang the drum saying it was taken out of context.
Yes I am unable to get to any of the primary sources for what he said, and so I remain skeptical.
Here is the quote about the black women, from his own mouth:https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1679829904026730496
I gave you the other sources in my response to your comment.
Hi @bozz. I can't answer for what anyone else says about him, but the statements I quoted here can be found in his Rumble broadcast. You can hear him affirm the views about MLK and the Civil Rights Act here, at 1bout 106 minutes. https://rumble.com/v46i1it-thoughtcrime-ep.-28-tunnel-trouble-j-e-d-i-rodgers-vs-kimmel.html
Here is the quote about the black women, from his own mouth:https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1679829904026730496
They will still say we are taking it out of context because that is what they have been taught to believe.
But that is the context. That's him, talking, for one hour. No problem with context there. All we can do is have the courage to speak the truth as we know it.
Hey the rumble video doesn't tell us why Kirk said anything about MLK, but is rather a rebuttal of the Wired source and that guy's motivations. Kirk then goes on to ridicule what lefties think about him, and how those sources twist their stories to fit the leftie misinformed notions about conservatives. I don't think I said that quite clearly enough, but this link does not convince me that Kirk's comments about MLK are in any way misguided or hateful.
It's up to us to decide if he was misguided. That's an individual choice we make (thank heavens). I just provided the quote. Not quoted out of context, or misquoted. That's all :)
I disagree strongly with Kirk. That doesn't have any bearing on how you or anyone else feels about his words.
Yeah it was. He didn't discuss his comment, he discussed the entity that quoted him.
Without access to the primary source, I can't honestly decide if I find him misguided. I wonder what he really meant! He keeps saying to go listen to the podcast, but I can't find it.
I don't know, @owasco, Kirk says,quoting Wired
Then Kirk says, as an aside,
Then, also his (Kirk's) view
Kirk as an aside, again,
That's the case for me. All that verbiage around these statements, the joking. That just softens the impact of the words.
What that author was doing was responsible journalism. He had published a piece that covered a meeting Kirk had in which he made these statement. The author was verifying that Kirk had indeed made the statements. Here is the article:
https://archive.li/xIqmw
The author was just checking his sources. He knows there are people such as you and I who believe nothing we hear. So, he checked with Charlie Kirk. That's the context. Kirk was verifying that the contents of that article were true. That's all. Whether you agree with Kirk or not, that's what he said.
From that article (which might be the very one Kirk ridicules in the Rumble video):
I want to hear him defend it. Maybe he can convince me, or render me more open to his thoughts.
The second one about the black women is only a snippet, produced by an entity devoted to shaping our understandings of its political enemies.
I wonder what Kirk said before, and what he said after that snippet. It has left me with a lot of questions. He ridicules Lee for knowing she would not be there without affirmative action. Kirk does not say all black women are not smart enough to be a congressperson (lots of them are very stupid, male, female, black, white), a talk show host (I agree about Reid), a president's wife (I'm sure there have been plenty of idiots in those shoes), or a SCOTUS justice (that she wouldn't define what woman means was candy to conservatives - are they wrong?). I wonder if there are any black women he would find deserving. I would love to watch the entire episode before I pass judgment. Thank you for both sources though.
I hope you don't think I am devoted to debunking you. I'm loving the discussion. I still want to see the primary source for the MLK comments, and for this episode. Those are very hard to find apparently. Which gives me the heebie jeebies.
I have no skin in the game. You are not debunking me, because I'm stating what I found and then giving my opinion on it. That's all. It's great that we have a discussion. It's great that you care to find the truth. Lord knows, that's getting to be a rare search.
What I'm doing here is punching a little pinhole in the hagiography growing up around this public figure. He had strong opinions. He had an agenda. It is not my agenda, but he and his followers are certainly entitled to believe and support what they do. My effort here is to say my contrary voice is allowed. I assert my right to disagree and to do a fact check on the mythos that is growing up around this public figure.
I know you certainly insist on that right for all of us.
100% agree.
I was totally not in the know of this case. WIll give it time to educate myself. This is important stuff.
I'm educating myself. I really didn't know much about him until this assassination. He was just in the background, part of the political scene I didn't pay much attention to. Now, however, his death has elevated him. There is a mythology growing up around him, and I needed to understand.
This is the best thing I have read about the murder. Thank you for your perspective.
I was told that Kirk said black women were unintelligent. Here, if I am reading this right, he simply said that those four were over-elevated in regards to their intelligence, which may or may not be true, not that all black women are unintelligent. It is interesting to me how things get so skewed in the telling.
I had never heard of Kirk until he was dead, or at least he did not make a big impact on me. I agree that free speech is very important! We've seen speech be thwarted more and more, the topics thwarted change with administrations. All speech must be free, no lines drawn. Maybe we should even allow people to yell "fire!" in theaters. As soon as we start drawing lines, the lines shift according to who, or what, is in power.
As for the supposed MLK statement, I can see how a conservative would think that MLK had some negative effects. MLK certainly has been presented as a near god-like figure, and must have had a human side. Perhaps some of what came from his work is not all that good. Conservatives believe receiving special treatment is debilitating, as I understand their stance on the matter. I can't find, through your link or other browser searches, what he actually said - without access to primary sources, I remain skeptical. Apparently Kirk made a full podcast to explain his reasoning which I can't get to, in some cases it seems to have been scrubbed. I'm not all that swift with finding stuff online!
Your personal story is great. I'm very proud of you! I wonder, though, if the company would have made the change even if you had not used violation of the civil rights act as grounds for the change, but more simply because they could see that you were the right person for the job and you objected. A conservative would like that story better, that laws do not need to be passed to force people to do the right thing. Sometimes laws give rise to their opposites, possibly most times. Maybe that was Kirk's objection to the act.
Hi @owasco,
I don't believe anything anyone says. I told my history classes (when I was a teacher), don't believe me. Even if I think what I'm saying is true, I could be mistaken. So...questioning is good.
While I waited for my husband's physical therapy session to end, I looked up the original source. If we don't trust the Wired account, we can trust Kirk speaking for himself. Here he is [https://rumble.com/v46i1it-thoughtcrime-ep.-28-tunnel-trouble-j-e-d-i-rodgers-vs-kimmel.html]on a Rumble broadcast, affirming the Wired report. Fast forward to about 106 minutes in the broadcast to catch him affirming the statements about MLK and the Civil Rights Act.
I agree about message creep in regard to the black women statement. There is no need to exaggerate. That statement is pretty strong on its own.
As for taking a less assertive approach in getting my job: I needed that job and didn't dare speak up without the force of law behind me. However, once I got the job, the discrimination didn't stop. They simply weren't ready for women yet. There were classes that prepared employees for the more advanced functions. They refused to send me or any of the other women to that class. I threatened them again, and was sent, with one other woman. When we sat down, the attendance book was passed around. We were not allowed to sign!!! Once again, I made an issue. Actually, I hated that part of the job (the advanced functions), but it really galled me that they were so obstinate about protect the male prerogative.
I'm not an argumentative person. I hate arguing, and I won't debate anyone. It's just, when something is wrong, it's wrong and my adrenaline flows :)))
Exactly. He also never said civil rights were a mistake, just passing it into law was a mistake because he thinks it's being abused today.
Well, I do think I just heard him say that in the Rumble video. He admits both that he said MLK was a bad guy, and that he said the act was a mistake. He just doesn't get into why he thought those things. I want to hear his argument in support of his statements.
I like that he openly admits his views have changed. He even admits that he used to think MLK as "holy" as the rest of us have come to believe. M:Ks holiness is what is suspect to Kirk, not everything he stood for. There really could have been aspects to MLK that were awful. Was his comment directed to only those things, those human flaws MLK must have had, that we are not told? I find this whole thing very interesting. Why do we think what we think? Many of us think we figure stuff out via critical thinking, when what really has happened is that we believe what we have been told.
I'll try to find a video of him explaining his position on the Act. As far as MLK goes, I've heard the same thing many times over the years, specifically that he was abusive to women. I've also heard the same thing about Gandhi.
I would love any full videos. Thanks!
The talk about the Civil Rights Act begins at 10:41
Interesting that this interviewee says the conditions of people of color have degraded since the civil rights act, and perhaps because of it. The segment is too pro-Trump for my taste. Again, this is not Kirk's explanation of why he thinks the act was detrimental in some respects.
Here's another one in his own words.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nHyLN47iPto
Thank you! That clears up a lot. He clearly states it isn't the civil rights act that was inherently bad, but that the way the act is being used is. As with any law, there will be those who will try to push it beyond its intended limits.
Yes. I feel as though we have many laws that are beyond their expiration date.
I do disagree with him. Isn't it a wonderful country that we can do that 🌷
You little rebel you! What a great anecdote.
I must admit I hadn’t heard of Charlie Kirk before the murder, but I’m a free-speech absolutist. Even if Kirk were the devil himself, he still had the right to voice whatever ideas he saw fit.
What constitutes harm? I'm a believer in sticks and stones. If it causes no harm, it must not be governed. Nothing should be governed possibly. I'm not sure to what extent we need to be governed.
Just enough to keep someone out of my face. Leave me in peace, and I'll do the same for you, that's my motto. Goes for the government, too.
Let those who want to be governed be governed. The rest of us can wear a blue armband to show we've opted out and are not subject to regulation.
Sticks and stones...absolutely!
Not really. If there is a room full of people and I"m in it (not likely), you will find me huddled in the corner. I hate attention. I don't like conflict. I refuse to debate anyone (well, on paper, maybe). But when something is wrong I snap :))) I think I have an unnatural supply of adrenaline.
Free speech, yes!! What would you and I do without it?
My understanding at present is information that has been provided by the FBI regarding the killer is inaccurate, at best, and blatant lies is a better description. I don't think the claims of the FBI have merit, and don't believe the alleged murderer has confessed, or that anything the FBI has said about them can be taken at face value to be accurate.
Because of that I cannot say what the motive or reasons for the murder were, nor assume guilt of the accused. From the pics and video the FBI has released they claim were of the accused ascending to the roof with a Mauser long action .30-06 rifle, and jumping down from the roof after shooting Charlie Kirk, with that rifle, it does not appear the accused had such - or any - rifle in his personal possession. Therefore I, from the provided information regarding the FBI's claims, can only point out that without that firearm, the accused could not have shot Charlie Kirk.
Otherwise I completely agree with your sentiments regarding free speech and your personal right to speak in agreement or disagreement with anyone about anything.
Thanks!
Thank you for pointing that out. @agmoore seems to accept that the person of interest is guilty of the crime, but there is a great deal to cast doubt on that. That the FBI is the source of this pronouncement makes it even less likely to be true. They haven't even found the bullet, without which they can't prove the gun is the gun that murdered Kirk. The official, government sponsored and approved story, is largely bunk.
Hi, Really, I don't accept. It doesn't matter who the murderer was. He was murdered, and since then there has been an effort to clamp down on any honest assessment of Charlie Kirk's legacy. That is a valuable legacy, politically, to some people. I here assert my right to look at it, honestly. To question the orthodoxy. Who killed Charlie Kirk? That doesn't really affect my research. Even if it was the government (which is what some people will say), it's his legacy that is important, that needs honest appraisal.
Please correct me if I am wrong about that bullet. Same with the Trump assassination show a year ago. No bullet. In both cases, it couldn't have gone far. When a tree falls in a forest...
My understanding is that the bullet is claimed to have been found, prevented from exiting Charlie Kirk's neck by his 'miraculously strong' spine. Too many magic bullets in FBI investigations of assassinations for me.
I don't know who killed Charlie Kirk. I certainly don't believe anything the government tells me, not now anyway. Maybe if the case is fully developed I will. It doesn't matter to me really who killed him.
It's his importance on the political scene that matters to me. His death is tragic. Horrible, but I want to be sure that a mythology doesn't grow up around his life and words. This is the time to set the record straight. Not everyone will want to hear the truth, but I sure will try to find out what that truth is.
Thanks a lot for commenting.
I have to wonder, if we saw footage like what you and I've watched more regularly, would we as a society be less likely to resolve things in such a fashion?
I once met a woman who was telling me how she'd been one of the first women in the state of Kentucky to graduate with an accounting degree, but after graduation nobody would hire her because "a woman can't do that job." I had thought those attitudes had been relegated to the dustbin of history, until I started volunteering as a clinic escort and discovered them alive and well.
Nice treatment of a touchy topic, I finally listened to my mother and went with if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. On an indirectly related note, are you familiar with the notion of stochastic terrorism?
I can't believe others don't see and understand what I think is obvious. I'm sure those others feel the same way about me. Antagonism is not going to help bridge the gap.
All I can do I try to respect their position, show them respect, and then try to dialogue. Most people I think want good things for this country. We just don't agree on what those good things are.
Read up on stochastic terrorism--interesting concept. I like it when language describes so well something we all recognize. The whole free speech issue has undergone quite an evolution. What will this Court do? The President has total immunity when he speaks (thank you SCOTUS). But the rest of us? It's hard not to worry.
I'm watching Jimmy Kimmel tonight. Should be an interesting show. Maybe we passed a threshold with this one....