The backlash to “inappropriate” public comments made in the days following Charlie Kirk’s death has sparked a new wave of firings and suspensions, with a number of university employees disciplined for sharing their views.
Who decides what’s inappropriate? Are we allowed to talk about his words and ideas?
It follows reports of teachers, firefighters, journalists, nurses, politicians, a Secret Service employee, a junior strategist at Nasdaq and a worker for a prominent NFL team, being censured in some form after publishing opinions on Kirk’s politics or death.
But we need to be able to talk about his politics, because they affect all of us.
At Florida Atlantic University, an art history professor was placed on leave after posting what officials called “repeated comments on social media … regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk”.
But the professor, Karen Leader, told the Sun Sentinel that she “did not make comments about the ‘assassination,’ the murder of Charlie Kirk. I never mentioned it,” and had just reposted others’ critical commentary about Kirk’s politics, including his extremist positions on race, and gay and transgender rights.
Perhaps the thinking is that by talking about Kirk’s politics now one is necessarily talking about his murder. I suppose that’s true, but at the same time, his murder has made it necessary to talk about his politics. The idea isn’t that he had bad politics therefore it’s ok that he was killed, it’s that having been killed doesn’t make his politics automatically benign.
Free speech groups, meanwhile, have condemned efforts by far-right individuals, including Donald Trump political allies Steve Bannon and Laura Loomer, and Republican politicians such as South Carolina congresswoman Nancy Mace, to “doxx” people who have made uncomplimentary posts about Kirk.
Mace urged the public to send her tips about employees believed to be “celebrating” Kirk’s death, and on Monday called for the education department to defund any educational establishment that “refuses to remove or discipline staff who glorify or justify political violence”.
Um. Speaking of people who glorify or justify political violence, has she been paying attention to Donald Trump over the past 50 years or so? Remember when he demanded the death penalty for the Central Park 5, who were innocent?
H/t Mostly Cloudy
Comments
17 responses to “He was an ideas guy”
Here’s a disturbing thought: what if the MAGA-ites see Charlie Kirk as their “George Floyd”? What if they think they can whip up a mass movement out of Kirk’s death?
Medhi Hasan on Kirk:
‘Kirk called for the release of David De Pape, the man who broke into the home of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and attacked her husband with a hammer, saying, “If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out.”’
We should also recall the jokes made about the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi made by Trump on his stump tours and by his son Donald Jr on social media.
Over in Ireland, I’ve just discover that another of my relatives has put up a Facebook post praising Charlie Kirk as a “good Christian family man.”
The Kirk cult is going worldwide. Charlie Kirk was commemorated at the ultra-conservative “Unite the Kingdom” rally in London a few days ago, led by the fascist Tommy Robinson :
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/europe/london-braces-mass-far-right-rally-charlie-kirk-will-mourned-rcna230978
And yet a Fox and Friends host can say – live on air – that a solution to homelessness would be to ‘just kill them all’ by lethal injection and that’s fine. Just read a weak, scripted apology and all is forgiven.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/14/fox-brian-kilmeade-apology-homelessness-comments
Kirk was dead-set against gun control in the US. Were he still alive today, he would probably also be against the idea that what goes around comes around. That could be further and logically extended to opposition to all circular motion.
RIP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMzr5cDKza0
https://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/worth-it-charlie-kirks-thoughts-on-gun-control/video/f68e1c16e57b1790fcce201efe6868fb
Whaaaat?
Cloudy, they don’t think he’s their George Floyd. They think he’s their Marinus van der Lubbe.
In addition:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/sep/15/karen-attiah-fired-washington-post-charlie-kirk
Link to a video and discussion of a disgraceful podcast by Vance, done on Kirk’s own podcasting platform. As the person who introduced this states — absolutely rightly — that Vance is exploiting Kirk’s murder for political ends and encouraging political violence.
https://www.politicususa.com/p/jd-vance-was-a-disaster-hosting-charlie?publication_id=3373725&post_id=173693376&r=4eglm3&triedRedirect=true
Re the #9 link: As former President Harry S. Truman memorably said of Richard Nixon over Watergate:“He not only doesn’t give a damn about the people; he doesn’t know how to tell the truth. I don’t think the son of a bitch knows the difference between telling the truth and lying.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/comments/x16n4y/my_favorite_quotes_of_president_truman_in_merle/
Here is the excellent Judd Legum on Popular Information addressing the firing of people who dare criticise Charlie Kirk:
https://popular.info/p/republicans-celebrate-kirk-as-free?r=4eglm3
Real advocates of free speech, aren’t they?
#7
Not Kirk, it’s Robinson they want as the new van der Lubbe.
Kirk is Horst Wessel.
The speed with which the call for anti-Left pogroms burst out suggests that they were ready for any excuse. Kirk just happened to provide the first opportunity.
Re #8,
I’ve been a regular reader of the Washington Post for almost 30 years, and a subscriber for about 27. I’ve been holding on because despite the increasingly single focus of the editorial page and the loss of a lot of my favorite features, it’s still got some excellent reporting, it’s one of the few sources for local news (though that’s suffered a lot), and I really need my daily newspaper fix.
And I’m not a huge fan of Karen Attiah. One of the first columns of hers that I read was a defense of the use of “Karen” as a misogynistic slur; she’s also a predictable defender of trans ideology. But still, quoting Kirk’s words on Bluesky should not be a fireable offense, especially for someone who’s paid to express her opinions clearly and forcefully (and despite my disagreements with her, I find her writing clear and forceful).
So, I think it may be time to switch to the Times.
Well, at least Trump is trying to calm the waters.
Kidding!
When citing someone’s own words is called ‘hate speech’, what does that say about the person who initially spoke those words?
Spoken like the toddler he is.
From Meidas Touch’s “Today in Politics”, in which Pam Bondi’s attack on free speech is addressed and a number of responses are quoted:
‘Conservative commentator and journalist Pedro Gonzalez: “Bondi’s comment about ‘hate speech’ is saying out loud what Stephen Miller and JD Vance have been hinting at and implying while using the tragedy of a political assassination as cover and people need to realize that this was a kind of mask off moment. This isn’t just about fighting political extremism. They’re talking about cracking down on political dissent, and they’re going to push this as far as people will let them, which is why it’s important to say something.”’
Why do we hear nothing about this from those who make the most noise about being defenders of “free speech”?