By Jill Filipovic

Copyright newstatesman

To hear Maga warriors tell it, the horrifying murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk was no less than the making of a martyr in the name of free speech – and “martyr” is the precise word on repeat. President Donald Trump called him “a martyr for truth and freedom” and asked “all Americans to commit themselves to the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died: the values of free speech, citizenship, the rule of law, and the patriotic devotion and love of God”. Conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro said Kirk was a free speech martyr. Conservative podcaster and Newsweek senior editor-at-large Josh Hammer wrote that “We must not allow Charlie to have died in vain as a free speech martyr,” called Kirk “the living embodiment of the First Amendment,” and implored young conservatives to “double down like never before in our commitment to free speech and the civil exchange of ideas”.

In fact, the right seems to be doubling down on targeting anyone who so much as criticizes Kirk’s words or his legacy, and certainly those whose speech vis-à-vis Kirk is crueler. The commitment to free speech extends, it seems, to conservative speech only – and conservatives are gunning to use the power of the state to squash speech they don’t like, ruin the lives of the speakers, and impose a kind of right-wing omni-thought on the nation.

Vice President JD Vance helmed the Charlie Kirk Show from the White House on Monday, and was joined by Trump’s policy advisor Stephen Miller. They used the platform to declare war on liberal organisations, which Miller said were part of a “domestic terror movement” despite there being no evidence that Kirk’s killer was affiliated with any liberal group. The aim seems to be to put progressive activism in the category of speech it’s ok for the government to quash.

Conservatives are creating their own superpowered cancellation machine, using public shaming along with the full force of government. The website “Expose Charlie’s Murderers” compiles posts from people celebrating his killing or simply being dismissive about it with the goal of getting them fired and publicly humiliating them. A conservative think-tank employee started a X-based “trophy case” of people who lost their jobs for ugly social media posts about Kirk’s killing; very few are people with any fame or notoriety, but rather random citizens who made nasty comments that were picked up by conservative activists and used to demand their firing. Journalists have also been terminated. MSNBC’s Matthew Dowd was fired after he said that “hateful words” can lead to “hateful actions.” A Florida reporter was suspended for texting a question about gun control to member of Congress – something ostensibly within their job description.

The Republican representative Clay Higgins pledged “to use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk” and added, “I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked [out] from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked”. Congressman Randy Fine – also a Republican – tweeted: “If you are aware of anyone in the 6th District of Florida – or heck, anywhere in the state – who works at any level of government, works for an entity that gets money from government (health care, university), or holds a professional license (lawyer, medical professional, teacher) that is publicly celebrating the violence, please contact my office. I will demand their firing, defunding, and license revocation.”

In his episode of Kirk’s show, Vance encouraged more of this snitching: “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out – and, hell, call their employer.” Other Republican senators have used their own social media accounts to target private individuals and demand their employers drop them.

This does not sound like a deep commitment to free speech and open debate. And it all feels particularly hypocritical coming from the political movement that has made cruel speech something of an art. When Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul was attacked with a hammer in 2022, many conservatives mocked him: Donald Trump made light of the near-murder and his son, Don Jr, posted a photo of a hammer and a pair of men’s underwear on social media and labelling it a Paul Pelosi Halloween costume.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects speech from governmental interference, even if that speech is hateful or offensive. Free speech advocates often push for an even more expansive view, one that is as cultural as it is legalistic and that rejects efforts to get people fired for saying dumb or intemperate things on social media. There are limits, of course, including if the comments impact the person’s work or suggest they can’t do their jobs well or fairly (a teacher who says that students of a certain race are less intelligent, for example, or an employee who makes clear they will discriminate against the people they’re supposed to work with or for). But one of the outcomes of the cancel culture debate is that it felt like, after a period of mild hysteria, we were shifting toward a more just equilibrium where we generally agreed that a person’s worst moment on social media shouldn’t define their life or cost them their job.

Not so anymore. Yet now it’s conservatives doing the cancelling. And they’re going further. “Cancelling” people – getting them fired, taking opportunities away from them, or publicly shaming them – was often unfair, but it wasn’t unconstitutional. Some on the right are taking it much further, and encroaching on the very bedrock values of American freedom.

The First Amendment offers expansive speech protections that Kirk championed and benefited from. I found much of what Kirk said and stood for to be deplorable; I would categorise a great many of his comments as racist, sexist, and otherwise hideous. I wonder if those lionising him as a model for civil discourse ever actually listened to the words that came out of his mouth. But Kirk did have the right to speak his mind. That he was murdered for his views should shock and frighten every American; when we resort to violence over vast political differences, even over bigotry, we break the basic social contract that enables our democracy to survive. The assassination of Charlie Kirk was ghastly and unjustifiable, full stop.

So is shredding the Constitution and its noble promise that people in America can say what they believe without fear of government penalty – and it’s particularly galling to do so in the name of a martyr for free speech.

[See also: Why Charlie Kirk was killed]