Charlie Kirk’s assassination: A threat to free expression | Opinion
By Bobby Block
September 12, 2025 9:30 AM
The brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk is more than just a crime against one man; it is a strike at the very heart of American democracy.
As people consider the life and untimely death of Kirk, it becomes essential to examine where they sit within the ongoing debate about free speech — its protections, its boundaries and the way society responds to words it does not like. His murder represents the ultimate form of censorship, one that undermines not only his voice but the principle of open expression on which this country is built.
Kirk was a polarizing figure. Many people admired his blunt, passionate style and believed he gave voice to ideas they felt had been ignored. Others despised his rhetoric and called it dangerous or hateful. That division is not unique to Kirk; it is the very landscape of public debate in a free society. The First Amendment was designed to protect unpopular speech precisely because it is always easiest to defend voices with which we agree. Protecting speech means protecting everyone. But in the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, the fault lines of our national conversation have deepened. His supporters blame his critics, pointing to the harsh denunciations and verbal attacks he endured. His critics, in turn, insist that his conservative ideas and confrontational style sparked violence against him. This mutual recrimination misses the essential point: the First Amendment is not the problem. The problem is how we, as a society, choose to react to the kinds of speech we love and hate. If Kirk’s words outraged, the answer was to rebut them with reason, humor, protest or the countless other forms of speech available to us in a free society.
Violence, however, is never an acceptable answer. It is the ultimate cancellation, the final silencing that forecloses debate entirely. To condone it — or even to excuse it as an understandable reaction — is to surrender the central principle that sustains our democracy.
Over the last decade, America has drifted toward a dangerous intolerance of dissenting voices. On both the left and the right, there has been a growing impulse to cancel or silence those who say things we find uncomfortable or offensive.
Social media has amplified this trend, rewarding outrage and reducing complex debates to soundbites and insults. Kirk’s murder should be a wake-up call. We cannot afford to let violence become an acceptable response to speech, no matter how much we dislike what is being said.
Instead, we need to reclaim the lost art of resilience in public debate and recognize that our opponents in debate are still human beings.
We must reject the temptation to meet offense with fury, criticism with threats and words with weapons. Instead, we should embrace the nobler task: answering speech with more speech, guided by the better angels of our nature.
Kirk’s life and death tell us something profoundly American. He spoke his mind without fear, and in so doing, he exercised a right that belongs to every citizen. That right is fragile, because it depends on the willingness of all of us to uphold it in practice.
If we allow violence to dictate who may speak and who must remain silent, we will have abandoned not just the First Amendment but the democratic experiment it supports.
As the head of the First Amendment Foundation in Florida, I know how we fight for these goals every day and believe in them with all of our hearts. We believe the best way to honor Charlie Kirk is by recommitting ourselves to the principle that allowed him — and allows us — to speak in the first place. Free expression is not easy, but it is the foundation of a society where disagreements can be aired, arguments can be won or lost and no one need fear for their life because of the words they utter. That is the promise we must keep alive.
[Click to see the full article]
|
Press-Freedom Groups File Brief in Defense of Reporter Timothy Burke’s Right to Gather Newsworthy Content Online
Burke had gained access to and reported on an antisemitic rant by Ye that occurred during the taping of Tucker Carlson’s since-canceled Fox News program
WASHINGTON — On Friday, a coalition of free-speech groups filed an amicus brief in United States v. Burke, a federal criminal prosecution that seeks to convict reporter Timothy Burke for publishing unaired footage from the former Fox News talk show Tucker Carlson Tonight.
The brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by the American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Florida First Amendment Foundation, Free Press, Freedom of the Press Foundation, and Jane Bambauer, professor of law and director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida.
Prosecutors are using the Wiretap Act, which prohibits “intercepting” “electronic communications,” in an attempt to convict Burke for finding and publicizing footage of, among other things, an antisemitic rant by Ye — formerly known as Kanye West — during a taping of Tucker Carlson’s since-cancelled Fox News show. Prosecutors claim that Burke’s actions involved the intentional interception of electronic communications and thereby violated the Act, statutory exceptions that include conditions where the “electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.”
The Court asked whether the text of the Wiretap Act criminalizes accessing generally accessible livestreams, and whether the First Amendment would allow such a reading. The issue is whether exceptions written into the Act must be proved as elements of the offense by the government, or an affirmative defense by the defendant.
Prosecutors claim that they’re entitled to bring Burke to trial regardless of whether the communications were accessible to the general public; instead, they say, Burke needs to prove as part of his defense that the communications were accessible. The amici argue that this would allow future government charges against journalists exercising their constitutional rights — or even charges against everyday people using the internet.
[See full article here] |
Commentary: First Amendment protects all speech, not just what’s popular
By Bob Shaw
A few months ago, the First Amendment Foundation agreed to partner with the University of Florida Levin College of Law to help launch a First Amendment Law Laboratory—designed to expose students to the real-world complexities of free expression and the right to know.
Now, the UF law school finds itself at the center of a national controversy over one student’s body of work and the offensive views he has expressed. Preston Damsky’s academic paper argues that the Constitution’s opening phrase “We the People” was intended only for whites, and he has advocated for the expulsion of nonwhite citizens. More recently, comments on his personal social media feed included a remark about the need to “abolish” Jews “by any means necessary.”
Public outrage is understandable. These views are odious and the antithesis of what America stands for. But here’s the hard truth: the First Amendment protects vile, hateful speech, not just popular opinions. That is the burden — and the genius — of a free society.
Even before the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in its landmark New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that public debate must be “uninhibited, robust and wide-open,” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted that perhaps the most important idea in the Constitution “is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
The fact that Damsky’s views are widely held to be loathsome does not negate his right to express them, even in a publicly-funded law school. Damsky’s papers — another called for the expulsion of immigrants — have received awards. It’s not likely his professors, who have remained silent, agreed with his conclusions. But they were clearly impressed by his scholarship and writing skills, which are the principal criteria for grading academic papers.
That doesn’t mean his speech is free from consequences. Damsky has reportedly lost a legal internship over his public comments. Bar examiners, potential employers, and civic organizations may — and likely will — make their own judgments and express their own First Amendment rights when it comes to hiring him or even allowing him to practice law. That is how a marketplace of ideas functions in a democracy.
The more serious concern lies in his call on social media to eliminate Jews “by any means necessary.” Here, First Amendment protection hinges on context. Courts distinguish between expressing even hateful ideas and inciting violence. A disturbing opinion stated on social media is different from saying the same thing to a mob. The university should investigate whether Damsky’s comments crossed that legal line, particularly whether his posts violate federal Title VI protections against a “hostile environment” for minority groups, including Jews.
And that is exactly what it is doing. The university’s investigation is scheduled to conclude in July. Meantime, Damsky has been suspended.
But before calling for his expulsion, we must consider a broader principle. Just a few weeks ago, many people criticized ICE and the Trump Administration for forcibly detaining and revoking the visa of a foreign student whose only “crime” was to co-author an op-ed about Palestinian rights in her college newspaper. The logic behind both reactions — one from the right, one from the left — is uncomfortably similar: punish speech we disagree with.
If we allow public universities to expel students based on offensive but legally protected views, we erode the very foundation of academic freedom and constitutional liberty that protects the speech of all of us. Yes, Damsky’s rhetoric is ugly. But the First Amendment was designed precisely to protect such speech — so the public, fully informed, can judge it for what it is.
Free speech is not without cost. Say what you believe, and the world will know who you are. That is both the beauty and the burden of the First Amendment.
Bob Shaw is the chairman of the First Amendment Foundation
|
It’s time for lawmakers and citizens alike to push back — hard. The Sunshine State is going dark. It’s up to us to turn the lights back on.
By Bobby Block, Executive Director, First Amendment Foundation
There was a time when Florida set the gold standard for open government. Our Sunshine laws were the envy of the nation, a model for accountability, transparency and public access to information about what our government gets up to. Those days are over. Today, Florida is sliding into secrecy at an alarming pace, and the blame rests squarely with Gov. Ron DeSantis and the state agencies following his lead.
Public records laws in Florida aren’t suggestions; they’re enshrined in law, designed to ensure that the people know what their government is doing in their name. But DeSantis’ office has decided that compliance is optional. Delay, deny or ignore — that’s the new standard operating procedure for the Executive Office of the Governor. The message is clear: If you want access to records that you’re legally entitled to, you’ll have to sue us.
This obstruction isn’t just a nuisance — it’s illegal. Chapter 119 of Florida Statutes requires public officials to provide requested records in a timely manner. But under DeSantis, delays have stretched from months to more than a year. In some cases, records are outright withheld without explanation. Court cases challenging these violations are piling up, and judges are starting to call out the administration’s blatant disregard for the law.
And it’s not just the governor’s office. State agencies, local governments, and even law enforcement are taking their cues from the top, making public records harder to access by citizens, lawyers, and the private sector. The result? A 2024 study from the Joseph L. Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida confirms what we already knew: Access to public information in Florida is deteriorating fast. Florida now ranks at number 31, the bottom half of U.S. states when it comes to compliance with public records requests.
The hypocrisy would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. After the recent assassination attempt on then-presidential candidate Trump at a golf course near Mar-a-Lago, DeSantis contended that Florida should lead the investigation in part because our records laws would enable the public to request information about it. This, from the same governor whose office has repeatedly hidden public records, fought lawsuits and even claimed an “executive privilege” that does not exist under Florida law.
This isn’t a partisan issue. Transparency is a fundamental principle of good government, whether you lean left, right or somewhere in between. Every Floridian, regardless of politics, deserves to know how their tax dollars are spent, how decisions are made, and what their leaders are doing behind closed doors.
It’s time for lawmakers and citizens alike to push back — hard. The Florida Legislature needs to hold oversight hearings. The courts need to continue striking down these blatant violations of the law. And the public needs to demand better, because when transparency dies, corruption flourishes.
The Sunshine State is going dark. It’s up to us to turn the lights back on.
The First Amendment Foundation is a nonprofit organization established in 1985 to protect and advance the rights of free expression, protest and the press, as well as to promote open government and access to public records. For more information about us and how to support our efforts please visit www.floridafaf.org
[Click Here to View Full Verison] |
|
|
