Charlie Kirk championed free speech as a fundamental American value. So, it’s sad—and ironic—that the murder of the 31-year-old conservative activist has triggered a fresh round of censorship, alarmingly aimed at teachers and other government employees. Educators in a dozen states have been fired or placed on leave for online statements that criticized Kirk or expressed approval of his death.
Education Week notes the breadth of the surveillance of educators: Teachers in “California, Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas have been fired or placed on leave ahead of investigations into alleged social media comments critiquing Kirk and implying approval of Kirk’s death.” In Washington, D.C., at the State Department, Christopher Landau, the deputy secretary who essentially serves as the secretary’s number two official, wrote online that “I have been disgusted to see some on social media praising, rationalizing, or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action,” referring to Mr. Kirk’s killing. “Please feel free to bring such comments by foreigners to my attention so that the @StateDept can protect the American people.” And a Republican lawmaker in Colorado called on the state’s Democratic governor to dismiss a state employee who posted that Kirk was “a white man who spews horrid shit against every marginalized community.” John Phelan, the Navy secretary, posted a message saying that sailors or Marines found to be “displaying contempt toward a fellow American who was assassinated” would be “dealt with swiftly and decisively.
I thought that’s what happens in authoritarian countries: government officials monitor public expression and penalize those who say the wrong thing. But it’s happening in the United States of America.
Let’s be clear: teachers have no right to propagandize in their classrooms about Charlie Kirk or anything else. But the ones who were fired or suspended last week commented on social media, imagining it was a forum for free and open dialogue. While there may be some extreme statements for which educators might be investigated, even in their social media postings, such as racist and pedophilic remarks, their comments about Kirk were political musings not germane to their teaching duties.
Republicans used to worry that technology companies censored speech via content moderation and other restrictions. Now they’re calling for restrictions to ensure nobody besmirches Kirk. One GOP representative said he planned to use “Congressional authority” to compel tech companies to ban any user who “belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”
Many of these censors also praise Kirk as a tribune of free speech.
In many ways, he was. By his own estimate, Kirk spoke at 150 colleges and universities each year. He eagerly challenged left-leaning students via his signature tagline, “Prove Me Wrong.”
That rarely happened. Kirk was older and more eloquent than most of the students he took on. He was also a voracious reader, which helped him expose their ignorance and biases.
And he posted these exchanges on social media, drawing millions of viewers. In one video, a student claims that Kirk—who never graduated from college—lacks “qualifications” to speak about economics. “Who is Milton Friedman?” Kirk replies. Of course, the student doesn’t know...
As my colleague Erik Schneider wrote about free speech on Tuesday:
"I'm just getting to Chris Cillizza's point here that free speech is not just for people who agree with you or me, as well as ourselves. It protects everybody, including people and speech that we think are personally disgusting and hateful.
And for the Attorney General of the United States (Pam Bomdi) to say that people who speak out against someone she supported (Charlie Kirk) is not covered by free speech... then we have an Attorney General who doesn't even understand the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which is very dangerous, considering all the power that she has.
1 thing for a MAGA member on social media to not know what free speech is... we can tolerate that in our liberal democracy. But when someone with the power to prosecute people and put them in prison... have them arrested, then it becomes dangerous."
From The New Democrat
And as Rik Schneider wrote about free speech yesterday:
"I'm not 1 to who argues that America is a free market completely, when it comes to our economy or anything else, including our ideas. But our liberal democratic system gives us a free market to express what we feel about others and the country as a whole... any topic that we want to express ourselves on. Our market is feee to the point that the ignorant and hateful have as much right to express themselves, as the enlightened and educated... anything that they want to talk about.
But since we do have a free market of ideas in America, we not only have a right to express ourselves, but others have the right to express (even in a hateful and ignorant way, as well as intelligent way) what they think about what we think and what we say. That's what's known as an exchange of ideas and open debate...
From The New Democrat
I would be the first to tell you that I'm not an expert on the late Charlie Kirk. Never met the man, never attended 1 of his speeches, etc. Really all I know about him right now, is from a few clips in the last week or so which him talking about his support for the 2nd Amendment and seeing his past comments about women, gays, and transgender people, all comments that put him probably as far to the right of the Phyllis Schlafly's of the world, the Patrick J. Buchanan's... far-rightists like that.
I'm only saying this because The New Democrat is still trying to figure out if Charlie Kirk was a true believer when it comes to free speech, or was it just 1 of his partisan talking points that he like to throw around, when the fact is he only believed in free speech for people like him and perhaps everyone else on the Right... just as long as they never criticized him, or anyone else on the far-right in America.
But as Erik and Rik have already mentioned this week, we believe liberal democracy and free speech is for everyone, not just people who agree with us. As the great Conservative Ronald Wilson Reagan said:
"The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor".
To make a partisan statement: I'm willing to bet anything that Donald J. Trump completely disagrees with President Reagan on this.
The point we're making here at The New Democrat, is American liberal democracy is big enough for the Charlie Kirk's, the Pat Buchanan's, the Phyllis Schlafly's,.. even people as verbally disgusting as David Duke and Don Trump. As well as "The Squad" and their far-leftist allies.
The main reason why the Communist Party is even allowed to exist in America, is because we have the First Amendment (that they don't believe in) and their ideology is so unpopular, that they would never even have any real power in this country, anyway.
The reason why the far-right is able to exist, is agains because of the First Amendment. But their ideas are so bad an unpopular and even though they're in power now in America, at least the executive level, we still have checks and balances that can contain them. And they peacefully won the election last year.
So America has never been a majoritarian democracy. As much as President Trump may want to rewrite the First Amendment, perhaps even erase it through executive order, our checks and balances won't allow him to do that. We're not a majoritarian democracy, we're not a social democracy. But America is a liberal democracy and 1 of our liberal values is free speech for everyone. Not just for the educated and the enlightened (to paraphrase Rik Schneider from yesterday) but for everyone that calls America home.
You can also see this post on WordPress.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All relevant comments about the posts you are commenting on are welcome but spam and personal comments are not.