America’s debate over free speech has reached a fever pitch following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, at a college event in Utah. The aftermath has exposed deep divides not only between the political left and right, but also within the conservative movement itself—a movement long defined by its opposition to so-called "cancel culture" and its vocal defense of the First Amendment. Now, as calls for punishment and crackdowns ring out from the highest levels of government, the boundaries of free expression are being tested in ways that few could have predicted just months ago.
In Texas, the shockwaves from Kirk’s death were felt almost immediately. On September 16, students at Texas State University gathered to mourn his assassination. The somber vigil was interrupted when another student taunted the crowd, pretending to be shot and announcing, “Hi, my name is Charlie Kirk,” before collapsing to the ground. The incident was caught on video, and the backlash was swift. Texas Governor Greg Abbott demanded the student’s immediate expulsion, declaring on social media, “Mocking assassination must have consequences.” Texas State President Kelly Damphousse soon confirmed that the student was no longer enrolled, stating that the university “will not tolerate behavior that mocks, trivializes, or promotes violence.”
Yet, as reported by Texas Tribune, legal experts quickly weighed in, pointing out that even distasteful or offensive speech is generally protected by the First Amendment. UCLA and Stanford law professor Eugene Volokh was unequivocal: “Mocking assassination is protected by the First Amendment. Speech that mocks, trivializes or promotes violence is protected by the First Amendment, generally speaking.”
This tension between the spirit and the letter of free speech law isn’t new in Texas. In 2019, after a wave of conservative outrage over the alleged silencing of right-wing speakers on college campuses, the Texas Legislature passed a law requiring all outdoor spaces at public universities to be open forums for speech, regardless of anticipated controversy. “Our college students, our future leaders, they should be exposed to all ideas, I don’t care how liberal they are or how conservative they are,” said state Senator Joan Huffman, the bill’s author. Governor Abbott, as he signed the bill, added, “Shouldn’t have to do it, the First Amendment guarantees it. Now it’s law in Texas.”
But the pendulum has swung in recent years. In 2023, Texas lawmakers eliminated diversity, equity, and inclusion offices from public universities and attempted to abolish tenure. In June 2025, a new law further restricted campus protests, banning amplification devices during class hours and expressive activities at night or at semester’s end. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) quickly filed suit, arguing the law is overly broad and could punish everything from playing music to wearing a Make America Great Again hat after hours.
Adam Steinbaugh, senior attorney at FIRE, called out what he sees as selective enforcement: “Free speech is as American as apple pie. Everyone says that they love it, but it gets a lot harder for people when it is speech that they find offensive,” he told Texas Tribune. “At that point, they start looking for the exits, for any way that they can stretch one of the exceptions of the First Amendment to reach the speech that they don't like.”
The debate has only intensified since Kirk’s assassination. Texas Republican leaders, many of whom were friends with Kirk, have condemned not just the killing, but also those who have publicly celebrated or mocked his death. Abbott praised the arrest of a Texas Tech student who made derogatory statements at a Kirk vigil—another student who is no longer enrolled. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced new committees to explore civil discourse and free speech issues on campus, with Burrows calling the reaction to Kirk’s murder “appalling” and evidence of a “deeper, systemic problem worth examining.”
But legal experts like Steinbaugh insist that even speech celebrating violence is protected unless it directly incites violence. “Distasteful is when the First Amendment kicks in,” he said. “When you have speech that is very unpopular, especially if it's unpopular with political leaders, that is when you want to be able to lean on the First Amendment to say, let's slow down. You can't punish someone just because you think this speech is clearly offensive or egregious.”
Meanwhile, the national conservative movement is wrestling with its own contradictions. Attorney General Pam Bondi declared, “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 promised to prosecute “purveyors” of hate speech, drawing a distinction between protected speech and what she called threats of violence. “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime,” Bondi said on The Katie Miller Podcast.
Her stance drew immediate backlash from both liberals and conservatives, many of whom cited Kirk’s own words defending even the ugliest forms of speech. Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson argued, “So when Charlie Kirk said 'I believe in free speech,' he didn't simply believe in free speech because it was in the Bill of Rights, he understood that it's in the Bill of Rights because it's in the New Testament… He felt his job, his duty, was not simply to protect it but to live it.” Megyn Kelly, another conservative voice, called Bondi's comments “absolutely ridiculous,” adding, “There’s just no way she doesn’t know what she said is legally unsound… there’s been reams of Supreme Court precedent on it.”
The Trump administration has responded to Kirk’s death with a series of proposed crackdowns. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced plans to revoke visas for foreign nationals celebrating the assassination. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Department of War is “tracking” such comments from military personnel. The White House is preparing an executive order on political violence and hate speech, and Trump himself has floated the idea of revoking broadcast licenses from networks he deems overly critical. “They’re 97 percent against, they give me wholly bad publicity… I mean, they're getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump told reporters.
The consequences have already been felt in the media and beyond. Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel was briefly suspended after Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr threatened action over comments Kimmel made about Kirk’s death. The suspension, widely criticized by both the American Civil Liberties Union and conservative commentators like Candace Owens, was lifted less than a week later after “thoughtful conversations” between Kimmel and ABC.
Other firings and suspensions have followed across the country, including a Secret Service employee placed on administrative leave for critical comments about Kirk and a Texas State student expelled for mocking the assassination. Vice President JD Vance encouraged people to “call out” those celebrating Kirk’s murder, even suggesting they contact employers.
Despite these actions, legal experts such as Yale’s Keith Whittington caution that university codes of conduct cannot override the First Amendment. Still, as Whittington told Texas Tribune, “Getting justice for a free speech violation is difficult, requiring a lawsuit to slog its way through the court system. It’s an imperfect deterrent for universities… If you lose a court case three years from now, you're willing to do that in order to satisfy the immediate political needs.”
As the dust settles, the battle over the meaning and limits of free speech in America rages on. The assassination of Charlie Kirk has become a flashpoint, revealing just how fraught and fragile the nation’s commitment to open expression remains—even, and perhaps especially, among its most passionate defenders.
