The assassination of Charlie Kirk—a law-abiding man peacefully speaking his mind in a public place to a crowd of people gathered to hear him—has touched off a new debate about “cancel culture.” Some on the Right who are understandably disgusted by seeing some on the Left gloat about, or even justify, Kirk’s murder have attempted to get such people fired from their jobs, with success in a number of cases. In response, the Left has accused the Right of hypocrisy for reversing course on the cancel culture that it very recently deplored.
What are we to make of this? Are there any principles to guide us besides the one infamously associated with Lenin: “Who, whom?”
In the first place, there is a difference between cancel culture and the idea that there are just and reasonable limits on the freedom of speech. There is a big difference between getting someone fired for expressing a provocative view on a controversial public question and condoning—or even celebrating—a political assassination.
A free and democratic society can only survive if people feel free to express their views on questions of public import. But such a society cannot survive if we allow the approval of political murder to be normalized.
Charlie Kirk’s supporters on the Right are understandably outraged that some would celebrate his murder, claiming he was an undesirable element and that society is better off without him. Kirk’s fans have a duty to defend his reputation against such base claims. Nevertheless, we should also recall that any political assassination ought to be condemned outright, whether the victim was a good or bad person.
Instead of wanting to see the assassination of someone who is peacefully and lawfully speaking his mind, even if he were the leader of a widely deplored political movement, we should want such a person to change his mind. From a merely prudential point of view, we can’t have a public culture in which the political assassination of anyone is thought justifiable without destroying our way of life. In practice, the idea that it is fine to assassinate someone whose views are too noxious, illiberal, or radical is inseparable from the idea that it is fine for a person to assassinate another with whom he disagrees strongly enough. That is a recipe for chaos.
Constitutional Questions
But what about the freedom of speech that is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution?
The First Amendment is not infringed—nor even implicated—when a private employer chooses to get rid of an employee who has condoned or celebrated an assassination. The amendment limits the government’s ability to regulate speech, not the freedom of private persons to choose those with whom they want to associate. Nor is there anything illiberal or inconsistent with civic friendship in an employer’s decision to end a relationship with an employee who has chosen to engage in outrageous speech. The employer has a right to employ only morally decent people, as well as to protect the public reputation of his business, which might well suffer from continued association with an employee who cheers the murder of a fellow American.
These principles explain Jimmy Kimmel’s departure from late night TV. To be fair, Kimmel did not justify or celebrate the Kirk assassination. Nevertheless, his remarks about it were offensive enough to his employers (Disney/ABC) and their customers (many of the affiliate broadcast stations) that his show was suspended.
The situation is somewhat different where public employees are concerned. They work for the government, and it is a reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment that the government cannot fire a public employee merely for having the wrong political opinions. It is, however, an equally reasonable principle that it is a privilege—not a right—to be employed by the public. The government should demand that its employees be of decent moral character. And surely the government is not unreasonably limiting the freedom of speech of its employees by requiring that they not endorse, justify, condone, or celebrate political assassination.
For example, under the First Amendment, any American has a right to call for lowering the age of consent for sexual intercourse to 12 years of age without fear of legal punishment. But would we want someone who publicly endorses such an argument to be a teacher of elementary-school, middle-school, or high-school children? Of course not. Most Americans would hold that there is no violation of the First Amendment in preventing such a person from working in a public school. Such an individual would set a very bad example for the students in a matter that is essential to their own moral development and vital to the health of the community. The same would obviously be true of a teacher who condoned or celebrated a political assassination.
The issues are somewhat different in the case of professors at public universities.
Professors require a very broad freedom of speech and academic freedom, because a university’s mission requires vigorous debate on ideas, even radical ones. Nevertheless, even here there are limits, which are imposed not only by the reasonable expectation that public employees be persons of good moral character, but also by the requirements of freedom of speech itself—including the freedom of speech of the university’s students, which is also essential to its educational mission.
Can there be freedom of speech in a classroom supervised by a teacher who has condoned or endorsed political assassination? Would students feel free to express views that differ from such a professor? Consider a more extreme case: Would a public university be obliged to continue to employ a professor who told a student in class, “Your views are so noxious that it would be reasonable for someone to kill you, or at least to be glad that you were killed by someone else”? I think not. But a professor who has publicly celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination has behaved in a similarly unacceptable, though somewhat less egregious, manner.
If it is not wrong for an employer to dismiss such an employee, then it is not wrong for others to call for his dismissal. This is not a fanatically intolerant cancel culture but simply a determination to maintain basic standards of decency that are necessary for a successful democracy.
The Golden Mean
To make sure that we do not slide into something resembling cancel culture, I would urge the Right to proceed with moderation in this matter, informed by the following distinctions.
Criticism versus Celebration
It may be tactless and obnoxious for someone to use the occasion of Charlie Kirk’s death to voice criticism of him for his views, but this is not the same as condoning or cheering his assassination. There is no reason to seek such a person’s firing, but every reason to call for a greater sense of decorum.
Private versus Public Statements
We should wish that nobody would celebrate or condone the killing of a fellow American, publicly or privately. Nevertheless, the weakness of human nature is such that even many good people have, at one time or another, said reprehensible things in private that they probably regret. Such a person needs to seek better self-control and a more generous mind, but he has not damaged our public culture by publicly condoning or expressing satisfaction with a political assassination. There is no reason to call for the firing of such a person, even if somebody else chose to publicize the indefensible private remark. There is a big difference between somebody who posts an outrageous statement on social media and someone who texts such a statement to another. These cases do not deserve to be treated in the same manner.
Constitutional Law versus Other Sources of Law
Although it would not violate the First Amendment to dismiss an employee who abused his freedom of speech by calling for or condoning a political assassination, the First Amendment is not the only source of law governing the free speech rights of Americans. Such rights are also defined by state constitutions and state law, as interpreted by state courts, and in some cases by the employment contracts of individuals who work for the government or other institutions. It may be that in some cases these sources of law provide a freedom of speech so broad that it would be a violation to dismiss the employee, even for a statement so extreme as to cheer on political murder. This would be regrettable, but it is more just and better for the country that no person be deprived of his job in violation of law or contract.
Action versus Due Process
From what I have seen online, there is a tendency among some on social media to identify someone who has celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination and then announce, “This person needs to be fired now!” While the outrage is understandable, this is not a reasonable or just demand. All administrators and employers have many things on their plate, and no good one would want to dismiss an employee without taking the time to look into the matter and find out whether the post is genuine and what the person in question has to say for himself.
Termination versus Correction
Charlie Kirk was a Christian, as are many of his supporters. Christians—and, indeed, all Americans—should want both justice and healing. There may be cases in which a person, in an outburst of the ugliest political passions, made some public comment gloating over the assassination, but who is also capable of an honest public retraction and sincere public apology. A person willing to take such a step would be doing something serious to repair our public culture. And those willing to accept such reparation and not demand immediate dismissal would be doing something important to ameliorate the political hatreds that are doing serious damage to our country.
Those of us who are justly outraged by Charlie Kirk’s murder and by the celebrations of it by our fellow citizens should reflect on these principles of moderation and on the deeper question to which they point. In responding to some of the indefensible remarks made about the assassination, is our aim to reaffirm and rebuild the standards necessary for a decent and civilized society? Or is the aim to purge as many of our political rivals as we can from as many institutions as possible? Obviously, the former aim is much more justifiable than the latter, and the American Right should always seek to be a movement and not a mob.