Tag: 1st amendment

Hillary Clinton on Kimmel, Kirk: ‘Very Clear Example of Using the Power of the State to Suppress Speech’

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday weighed in on the fallout surrounding Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, addressing both the late-night host’s removal and the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk during an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.

When asked if Kimmel’s suspension amounted to state censorship, Clinton replied: “Well, I think this is a very clear example of using the power of the state to suppress speech. It is a direct government action to try to intimidate employers, organizations, corporations, much of which we’ve already seen, to remove an opponent, even though it’s a comic.”

Clinton continued:

Look, I had no idea when I was in public life and listening to the jokes that were made about me and the attacks that were, you know, coming from people like Jimmy Kimmel and others that I could have called up the head of the FCC and said, take them off the air. I don’t like what they’re saying. I mean, of course, this was a particularly sensitive time because of the terrible crime that was committed, the murder of Mr. Kirk.

But you know, you defend free speech in terrible times, and you defend free speech that is used against holding people in power accountable through satire, humor, barbed attacks, you defend it even when it is offensive, and they have unfortunately taken the view that we believe in free speech, as long as we’re making the speech and your speech agrees with us, otherwise, we’re against free speech.

Clinton later amplified the remarks on X, posting: “In America, we defend free speech in terrible times. We defend free speech even when it’s offensive. We defend free speech.” She restricted comments on that post as well as one she made one week after Kirk’s assassination congratulating American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten on her book Why Fascists Fear Teachers.

Weingarten’s excerpts, published in Rolling Stone days after Kirk’s assassination, accused conservatives of being “fascists” and “Nazis,” likened book bans to Nazi Germany in 1933, and warned that Trump and Elon Musk were acting as “shadow governing partners.” The release drew attention because Robinson, the 22-year-old suspect charged with Kirk’s murder, inscribed “Hey fascist! Catch!” on bullet casings, according to authorities.

Teachers across several states were investigated or fired after posting celebratory or hostile messages about Kirk’s assassination, with examples including posts such as “America became greater” and “1 Nazi down.” A new website, charliesmurderers.com, reported receiving thousands of submissions documenting celebrations of Kirk’s death. 

Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX) said such rhetoric reflects a dangerous climate created by years of partisan demonization. “And now, Charlie Kirk has been murdered,” Hunt told Breitbart News. “This is not rhetoric. These are lived realities.” He asserted that Democrats and their allies “have vilified, censored, and targeted conservatives at every turn for over a decade,” adding that political violence against conservatives is now “normalized by silence, excuse-making, or even tacit encouragement from the left.”

Clinton herself previously described Republicans as her “enemies” during a 2015 Democrat debate. Asked which adversary she was most proud of making in her political career, Clinton responded, “Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians; probably the Republicans.”

The dispute surrounding Kimmel began after he mocked Trump’s mourning of Kirk’s assassination, joking it was “like how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish,” and suggested Robinson may have been part of the “MAGA gang.” Authorities later identified Robinson as the suspect, describing him as left-leaning and in a relationship with a male who identifies as female and who “hates conservatives and Christians.” Utah Governor Spencer Cox confirmed those details, and investigators stated Robinson admitted responsibility in a message to the partner.

Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr cautioned ABC and Disney that broadcasters risk their licenses if they mislead the public, saying Nexstar Media Group did “the right thing” by suspending Kimmel. Sinclair Broadcasting also halted broadcasts of Jimmy Kimmel Live and announced a special tribute to Kirk would air in its place. ABC affiliates cited the need to uphold community values and maintain constructive dialogue. Carr noted that networks could “do this the easy way or the hard way,” signaling further review of their obligations under federal law.

Keep reading

The “Charlie Kirk Act”, Free Speech, Propaganda, And A Censorship Nightmare

As of the date of this writing, September 17th, 2025, it is Constitution Day. Despite this, in 2025 America, the Constitution is being eroded more than ever before. Just read any of constitutional attorney and founder of The Rutherford Institute, John W. Whitehead’s essays on the matter.

The infringements are endless, with masked agents running amok, disappearing people off the streets, extrajudicial executions at sea, military deployed domestically as law enforcement, unconstitutional wars waged, illegal mass surveillance on every American, warrantless search and seizure, debt-based Fiat currency, and so much more.

This isn’t happening in a vacuum. The only way for Americans to sit by and allow their freedoms to die at such a magnitude is to keep them perpetually distracted and apathetic. This is why 5th-generation warfare comes in so handy for the ruling class. Keep the entire population besieged from all sides at all times, economically, biologically, informationally, neurologically, so utterly saturated, so deep in the trenches, they don’t even realize they’re in a war.

When the average tax cattle are so exhausted from capitalist exploitation just to meet the bear standards for survival, so psychologically fatigued from the constant influx of doom porn, and the various other ways that the rat race is designed to keep us exhausted and unfulfilled while being simultaneously bombarded with socially engineered algorithms feeding into echo chambers it’s easy to keep the masses focused on manufactured outrage and fake culture wars, or shallow celebrity gossiping and rigged sports-ball entertainment. Blissfully unaware or uncaring of how their rights are being stripped away every day

The most fundamental of these freedoms is guaranteed to us in the 1st amendment — freedom of speech, freedom of expression, among others. That simple principle is the litmus test of a free society: Can you speak your mind freely without reprisal from the state? For believers in America’s founding ideals, the answer should be a resounding yes. And yet politicians and citizens alike oftentimes seem all too keen on allowing their principles to be pulled by puppet strings, ethically ambiguous and logically inconsistent.

Last week’s heinous murder of controversial conservative pundit Charlie Kirk has brought these issues to the forefront of our current discourse. Kirk based his entire brand on exercising the First Amendment, engaging in public debates with individuals whose ideological position opposed his own until he was ultimately gunned down last week.

Already, there are numerous discrepancies in the official story of the assassination, and much in line with the old adage of not letting a good crisis go to waste, the usual suspects have wasted no time in exploiting his death to ramp up the divide and conquer rhetoric. On the heels of attempting to make him a martyr, many on the right who previously grandstanded for free speech are now openly demanding the erasure of the rights that Charlie himself embodied.

But let’s not mince words here and call a spade a spade; none of this being said is to put him on a pedestal. Charlie Kirk was a professional liar, a propagandist of the highest degree who promulgated blatantly false, oftentimes bigoted, authoritarian rhetoric. He built a career off of perpetuating the fake left versus right dichotomy, exploiting the base he cultivated by inflaming the fears, anger, hatred, sadness, and anxieties of conservatives. While this was probably not Kirk’s intention, as he himself was likely just as much a victim of government propaganda that ultimately fomented his views, it was most definitely the result. Yet despite all of this, anyone who claims to actually support free speech should still support his right to express his ideas, no matter how much one may disagree with them.

Keep reading

State Department finally shuts down ‘framework’ behind ‘censorship nerve center’ Rubio shuttered

The State Department confirmed it formally removed the “framework” underlying both the Global Engagement Center, deemed the government’s “censorship nerve center” by a first-term Trump administration official and defunded by Congress after the 2024 election, and GEC’s surreptitious successor Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Hub, which Secretary Marco Rubio shut down in April.

Acting Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Darren Beattie told The Daily Wire there were “loose ends” to tie up, including GEC’s agreements with other countries to “facilitate and provide a framework for cooperation on mutual objectives, including principally combating so-called ‘disinformation,’” which sometimes turned out to be domestic and often consisted of disfavored narratives.

Beattie said GEC used an “indirect approach to censorship whereby they would fund third-party organizations that would engage in activity from facilitating the demonetization of conservative sites to generally castigating certain narrative perspectives on COVID, on immigration, on foreign policy, as simply malign as a matter of foreign influence when in fact these were entirely legitimate points of view that often came from Americans.”

His office is conducting a “meticulous transparency review” whose “very first tranche” will come out this fall, reflecting “the extensive review of hundreds of thousands of emails that will more specifically and systematically document exactly the kinds of nefarious activities that the GEC was involved in[,] in this unfortunate chapter of America’s history.”

Beattie wouldn’t say if that would be released through a vehicle like the Twitter Files, just that its approach would be “entirely appropriate and very satisfying as well.”

Keep reading

AG Pam Bondi Clarifies Her Stance on First Amendment Following Backlash — Says Her Office Won’t Prosecute “Hate Speech”

Attorney General Pam Bondi is scrambling to clarify her comments after a firestorm erupted over her suggestion that the Department of Justice would target so-called “hate speech.”

The controversy follows an outrageous incident at an Office Depot in Michigan, where three teenage boys were denied service after pre-paying for posters meant for a Charlie Kirk memorial vigil.

The smug employees—one identifying as a supervisor, another as a “manager”—flatly refused to print the order, dismissing the vigil posters as “propaganda.”

Office Depot corporate quickly issued an apology, announced an internal review, and confirmed the employee had been terminated.

But rather than directly addressing the broader climate of hate fueling these incidents, Bondi used her Fox interview to focus on discrimination claims against Office Depot:

“Employers, you have an obligation to get rid of people. You need to look at people who are saying horrible things, and they shouldn’t be working with you. Businesses cannot discriminate. If you want to go in and print posters with Charlie’s pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for that. I have Harmeet Dhillon right now in our civil rights unit looking at that immediately. That Office Depot had done that—we’re looking at it.”

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh wasted no time unloading on Bondi for what he called a “gratuitous and pointless” use of DOJ resources:

“Get rid of her. Today. This is insane. Conservatives have fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone. We won that fight. Now Pam Bondi wants to roll it all back for no reason. This stuff is being handled successfully through free speech and free markets. We need the AG focused on bringing down the left wing terror cells, not prosecuting Office Depot for God’s sake.”

Keep reading

Dearborn’s Muslim mayor tells Christian he’s ‘not welcome’ in debate on honoring pro-terror Arab leader

At a Dearborn City Council meeting last week, Mayor Abdullah H. Hammoud told local resident Edward “Ted” Barham, a Christian, that he was “not welcome” in the city after Barham raised concerns about new street signs honoring Arab American News publisher Osama Siblani.

FOX 2 Detroit reported that the signs honoring Siblani were placed at intersections on Warren Avenue by Wayne County, not the City of Dearborn. But the mayor escalated the debate, telling Barham, “Although you live here, you are not welcome here.”

Barham introduced himself as “Ted Barham, Dearborn resident,” and objected to two intersections being renamed after Siblani.

He said, “He’s a promoter of Hezbollah and Hamas” before quoting past remarks from Siblani, including, “He talks about how the blood of the martyrs irrigates the land of Palestine … whether we are in Michigan and whether we are in Yemen. Believe me, everyone should fight within his means. They will fight with stones, others will fight with guns, others fight with planes, drones, and rockets.” 

Keep reading

Pam Bondi Says Government Will “Go After” Hate Speech, Drawing First Amendment Criticism

US Attorney General Pam Bondi has stirred controversy with recent comments seeming to suggest that certain forms of speech could fall outside First Amendment protections, a stance that is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution.

During an appearance on The Katie Miller Podcast following last week’s assassination of conservative activist and commentator Charlie Kirk, Bondi stated, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society…” She added, “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Her remarks immediately drew sharp responses from across the political spectrum, with many warning that her approach opens the door to dangerous government overreach.

Bondi later attempted to narrow the scope of her original statements in a post on X, writing, “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.”

She continued, “For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE), a civil liberties group focused on free speech, fired back, stating, “There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.”

The Supreme Court has long protected even offensive or unpopular speech, with the Court’s view being that the “proudest boast” of America’s free speech legacy is “freedom for the thought that we hate.”

Conservatives who typically align with Bondi’s broader political positions also voiced concern.

Keep reading

Burning the Flag or Torching the Constitution: Only One Destroys Freedom

“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”Ray Bradbury

Cancel culture—political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance—has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance.

Nothing illustrates this more clearly than President Trump’s latest executive order calling for criminal charges for anyone who burns the American flag—a symbolic act long upheld by the Supreme Court as protected political expression.

This push is not about patriotism—it is political theater.

For an administration under fire—from the Epstein cover-up to tanking approval ratings and mounting constitutional crises—flag burning serves as symbolic outrage staged as political cover, a culture-war diversion to distract from more serious abuses of power.

Consider the timing: on the very same day Trump announced penalties for flag burning, he also signed an executive order establishing “specialized” National Guard units to patrol American cities under the guise of addressing crime.

This is the real bait-and-switch: cloak military policing in patriotic theater and hope no one notices the deeper constitutional violations taking root.

In other words, Trump’s flag fight is a decoy.

Yet in today’s climate, where mobs on the left and censors on the right compete to silence speech they dislike, even this form of protest is under fire.

In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Texas v. Johnson that burning the flag of the United States in protest is an act of protected free speech under the First Amendment.

Keep reading

DOJ Declares School Dissent Protected Under First Amendment

Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued a memorandum to all United States Attorneys highlighting the Department of Justice’s policy to prevent and act upon violations of parental rights and First Amendment liberties in educational settings. 

Bondi directed United States Attorneys to work with federal, state, and local partners to identify and respond to credible threats against parents whose federal rights have been violated.

“The First Amendment guarantees the right of every citizen to speak freely, assemble peaceably, and petition the government for redress of grievances-including at public school board meetings,” the memo said. “These rights do not yield to political trends or bureaucratic convenience. While schools must maintain order, such authority cannot be used as a pretext to silence dissent or punish parents for expressing their views. 

The new memo says it will protect the right of parents to dissent during school board meetings. 

“Let me be clear: when school board members, administrators, and other government officials threaten law-abiding parents, they can and will be held accountable,” the letter said. 

Keep reading

US lawmakers introduce ‘thought police’ bill to strip citizens of passports over Israel criticism

A US congressman is introducing a bill that could potentially be used to deny US citizens the right to travel based solely on their speech, including for criticism of Israel, the Intercept reported on 13 September.

Introduced by Florida Congressman Brian Mast, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the bill would grant Secretary of State Marco Rubio the power to revoke the passports of US citizens in the same way he has revoked the green cards and visas of foreign nationals in the US for criticizing Israel.

In March, Secretary of State Rubio revoked the visa of Turkish doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk after she wrote an opinion piece critical of Israel in the Tufts University student newspaper in 2024. 

The op-ed did not mention Hamas, but called for boycotting and divesting from Israel.

One section of the bill grants the Secretary of State the ability to deny passports to people determined to have “knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.”

The reference to “material support” disturbs civil liberties advocates because it is vague and can be interpreted to include speech and anti-war activism.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which functions as a front for Israeli intelligence in the US, and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law suggested in a letter last year that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) was providing “material support” for Hamas by organizing campus protests against Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

The provision regarding material support to terrorism poses a threat specifically to journalists, The Intercept noted.

Keep reading

The Standard for ‘Vicious’ Speech Trump Laid Out After Kirk’s Murder Would Implicate Trump Himself

In a video released on Wednesday night, President Donald Trump said “radical left” rhetoric “is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today,” including this week’s assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a college in Utah, and “it must stop right now.” Trump vowed that “my administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.”

Trump also expressed devotion to “the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died,” including “free speech.” Yet that value seems inconsistent with Trump’s claim that hateful rhetoric “directly” causes violence and his promise to “find” anyone who “contribute[s]” to that problem, apparently including “radical left” people who make inflammatory statements about their political opponents. As Trump put it on Fox News this morning, “The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy.”

The solution that Trump is contemplating seems to go beyond urging self-restraint. The Trump administration is developing a “comprehensive plan on violence in America,” including “ways that you can address” what “can only be called hate groups,” which “may breed this kind of behavior,” White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said on Thursday. “It will not be easy. There’s layer upon layer upon layer, and some of this hate-filled rhetoric is multigenerational, but you’ve got to start somewhere.”

Like Trump, Wiles noted “the importance of free speech.” But it is impossible to reconcile that principle with any government plan that entails targeting “hate groups” because they are “vicious” and “horrible” or because they engage in “hate-filled rhetoric.”

What sort of rhetoric does Trump have in mind? “It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree,” he said in the video. “Day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible for years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals.”

Such rhetoric is indeed “hateful” and “despicable,” but it is also constitutionally protected. It is hard to imagine how the government, consistent with the First Amendment, could try to suppress the speech that Wiles says “may breed” political violence.

This is not to say there is no connection between the sort of demonization that Trump describes and appalling crimes such as Kirk’s murder. Spencer Cox, Utah’s Republican governor, says Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man police have identified as Kirk’s killer, inscribed his rifle cartridges with messages such as “Hey fascists! Catch!” But while demonization may be a necessary condition for such violence, it is obviously not sufficient. If it were, we would see a lot more political murders.

First Amendment law recognizes that distinction between words and actions. Hyperbolic analogies like the ones that Trump cited clearly fall into the former category. And under the test established by the Supreme Court’s 1969 ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, even advocacy of illegal conduct is protected by the First Amendment unless it is both “directed” at inciting “imminent lawless action” and “likely” to have that effect. Comparing your political opponents to Nazis, however “hateful” and “despicable” that may be, plainly does not meet that test.

Trump himself has relied on the Brandenburg test in arguing that he should not be held civilly liable for his role in provoking the 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. He insisted that he did not intend to cause a riot, noting that he never explicitly advocated anything more extreme than peaceful protest. Yet his pre-riot speech, which was full of invective against the “radical-left Democrats” who supposedly had rigged an election and dark warnings about what would happen if an alleged usurper were allowed to take office, easily meets the standard that Trump applies when he says anti-conservative rhetoric is “directly responsible” for “terrorism.”

So does the demonizing rhetoric that Trump routinely deploys against people who irk him. As he tells it, his political opponents are not merely wrong. They are “sick, sinister, and evil people” who are “trying to destroy our country” because they “hate our country.” They are “communists,” “Marxists,” “fascists,” “radical left lunatics,” “sick people,” and “vermin.” They are “the enemy from within.”

Keep reading