First Amendment Absolutism Should Be Buried with Charlie Kirk

American Greatness ^ | 09/20/25 | Michael S. Kochin

[rktman]

Speech is one thing. Actions, not so much.

[No name given]

True.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Speech is one thing

What about speech that incites actions?

For example: KILL ALL JEWS!

[Dartoid]

Really bad idea. Sounds like something written from the far left.

[Dartoid]

Incitement is already illegal.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

There is much to admire in Charlie’s devotion to those principles, but his murder put those principles to the test as the basis for a free society and showed that they fail.

No.

They won.

Which is why they scare you.

[ClearCase_guy]

The Left decided that speech was violence. They also decided that violence was speech. Burning down cities is speech protected by the First Amendment. Frowning at a rainbow flag is violent hate speech.

[Retain Mike]

“Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” he wrote on X in May of 2024. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.”

I have problem with "hate", because it has a social media presence independent of any objective or legal meaning. Hate plus whatever can be applied to anyone you oppose.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Incitement is already illegal.

Ok, where do we draw the line on incitement?

Does portraying a group as subhuman or existential threats to the country , constitute incitement? ( e.g. Joe Biden’s September 2022 Philadelphia speech which says: “ Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”)?

That would include almost everyone here in FR.

[No name given]

That’s right.

[Alberta's Child]

I disagree with the author’s main premise. Who in their right mind would ever trust ANY level of government to regulate speech “appropriately?”

[Who is John Galt?]

The 1st Amendment was never absolute, in terms of free speech in these United States:

"Congress shall make no law..."

It was intended to limit the power of the federal government; State governments were not mentioned. Unfortunately, the ratification of the 14th Amendment, rather than further limiting government power by incorporating the "make no law" provision against the States, seems to have opened the floodgates of government regulation, via the all-powerful central government on the Potomac...

[logi_cal869]

Once again, a talkinghead opines with ignorance:

“America must confront hate and incitement with lawful strength, not naïve trust.”

Um...

“Definition of Terrorism
Noun

The use of violence, threats, or intimidation to incite fear, or to coerce action, for political purposes.
The use of violence as a means of achieving a goal.”

I do not react well to grouping my ‘hate’ of their terrorism WITH their terrorism.

In contrast to Conservatism - particularly those of us who took an oath - the key difference is that WE defend the U.S. Constitution, the law of the land and founding documents...

...whereas they seek to destroy it (and us).

This ‘hate speech’/’haters’ crap - recently telegraphed by the idiot under the blonde cap at DOJ - needs to stop. NOW.

[Jim W N]

“There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.”

What gross misunderstanding and misinformation.

First, the 1A is a REMINDER TO THE FEDS that they are not to "INFRINGE" upon the PRE-EXISTING RIGHT of free speech (i.e. the Constitution delegates no power to the feds regarding free speech. Therefore, free speech is constitutionally out of bounds to the feds.

Second, the 1A is directly pointed at the federal gov't ("Congress") and nowhere else. Originally understood, the main point of the 1A is regarding the freedom of FREE POLITICAL SPEECH.

The Constitution and 1A does NOT give the feds power to control the speech of free individuals or free enterprise. Control and governance of free speech is up to the free governance of individuals, free enterprise, and local gov't including the states, but NOT the federal gov't.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: They won.

How did they win?

As an example, Just because the Romans crucified Jesus and executed the leading apostles did not mean that they won.

[SeekAndFind]

I agree with what you just wrote, but how is this statement of the author’s:

“There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.” a gross misunderstanding and misinformation?

I’m having a hard time trying to see how it contradicts what you just wrote.

[Macoozie]

Lies are actionable.
Actions have legal consequences

Citizens screaming that they hate the government is Manna for our Republic.

Let them reveal themselves.
Folks can respond in kind.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Who in their right mind would ever trust ANY level of government to regulate speech “appropriately?”

Do you agree with the regulatory threat made by FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr against Disney and ABC following comments made by Jimmy Kimmel about the MAGA movement in relation to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk?

[Jim W N]

Unfortunately, the ratification of the 14th Amendment, rather than further limiting government power by incorporating the "make no law" provision against the States, seems to have opened the floodgates of government regulation, via the all-powerful central government on the Potomac...

Don't acquiesce to the utterly unconstitutional "Incorporation Doctrine" spawned in the pit of hell and promoted by hell's legions, the Left.

As Judge Robert Bork, considered the leading constitutional scholar of his time, the correct interpretation and application of the 14A depends on the INTENT OF THE RATIFIERS, not the equivocal writers of the 14A. And clearly, the states that ratified the 14A had NO intent to grant the feds the sweeping powers the incorporation doctrine gives the feds.

The 14A is a Civil War Reconstruction Amendment intended to give former slaves full citizenship. Period. No other intention.