Charlie Kirk's murder: What the First Amendment doesn't protect

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, one would expect sympathy for him and his family. Calls for peace. Well wishes for his family. An overall desire for things to get better.

But that is not what happened.

Horrific comments filled the internet. Lies about Kirk. Calls that other people, including his wife, to be killed next. This development only compounds the despair. It tells us that the bloodlust was not isolated. The murder came with the support of a very vocal minority that fostered the online environment that incited Kirk’s killer.

Consider comments like this one by a policeman, which accused Kirk of being “openly racist” and, as a result, “ain’t really winning in the empathy department.” Or this one saying that Kirk “hated the LGBTQ community.” Thismusician said that more political violence will have to happen against conservatives to have “a better world.” Or this one that says “lets make more martyrs.” Stephen King lied about Kirk, saying he had openly advocated for stoning “gays,” which he later admitted was not true.

These employees act surprised when they get fired or suspended from their jobs. This has led these recently terminated people, or media personalities like Don Lemon, wrongly invoking “free speech.” The term is thrown about without any understanding of its limits.

It should be prefaced by saying that all First Amendment cases have to be evaluated on their individual merits. So, any individual example cannot be generalized within an op-ed. But there are general principles that do not seem to be understood.

First, the First Amendment only restricts the government from regulating speech. But this does not limit the consequences of speech, especially if one is privately employed. An employer likely does not wish to employ someone who advocates for violence or knowingly spreads lies.

Continued below.