The rise of the First Amendment

“Social media has provided an opportunity for the misinformed to become the voice of the miseducated.” Dr. BLR

 

As a strong supporter of the First Amendment, I am disappointed that, in this era of political correctness, voices are being silenced on both sides of the political spectrum. A lively debate fosters intellectual growth, regardless of how unpopular someone's opinion may be. In this context, I will discuss the recent death of Charlie Kirk (Kirk) at a speaking event on the campus of Utah Valley University. For the record, I knew nothing about him before his untimely passing, until I visited his website and the algorithmic whirlpool directed his information my way. Unapologetically, I have a selective indifference to his death because I didn’t know him. Nonetheless, I genuinely appreciate young people, even if their views are controversial, stepping up and speaking out on issues that will impact their future. Some examples include Nick Fuentes, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannopoulos, who are controversial in their own right. However, Kirk, who didn’t graduate from college, was a prominent figure among mostly white conservative youth on college campuses. His advocacy for young Republicans deserves praise because he encouraged them to share their opinions and vote according to their conscience.  

When I learned more about Kirk, I became worried about how many of his followers seem to judge anyone who isn't white, Christian, and heterosexual. I base this on social media posts I saw on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube videos, and mainstream media after his death. I wonder what in their lives drives them to be so obsessed with others’ lives. We only get one shot at living, so they should focus on making the most of their own.

While researching Kirk’s history for this essay, I noticed many of his opinions lack empathy, especially his mocking of the 2020 killing of George Floyd, the African American man murdered by Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin. For Kirk, simply commenting on the controversial incident and saying, “I don’t care that he’s dead,” “He’s not a hero,” “This guy was a scumbag,” and “He shouldn’t be celebrated,” wasn’t enough. I saw, through social media and his own words, that he mocked the event years after it happened. Kirk also promoted what he claimed was Black inferiority and questioned the abilities of Black airline pilots, saying, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’” But he didn’t stop there. Kirk kept fueling the fire of the controversial white supremacist, xenophobic, and anti-immigrant "Great Replacement Theory” conspiracy, as noted on his X account (@charliekirk11), dated December 27, 2023. First introduced in 2011 by French writer Renaud Camus in his book Le Grand Remplacement, the theory claims that elites and Jews are intentionally plotting to replace white populations with non-white immigrants, Muslims, and other people of color. 

This theory has motivated acts of terrorism and mass killings by its followers. For instance, in 2022, an ethno-nationalist and supporter of white supremacy Payton S. Gendron shot and killed 10 Black people at a Tops supermarket in Buffalo, NY, which he partially livestreamed; antisemite Robert Bowers murdered 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA, in 2018; white nationalist Patrick Wood Crusius shot and killed 23 people and injured 22 at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, in 2019. In 2017, Neo-Nazis rioting in Charlottesville, Virginia, where an attendee was run down and killed, chanted, “You will not replace us, and Jews will not replace us.” Even President Donald Trump and his rhetoric somewhat supported it when he claimed, “Millions of people are invading us. Many of them are criminals who should not be allowed in our country.” So far, no evidence supports this dangerous theory, but Kirk needed to rally his supporters, including student activists, evangelical Christians, MAGA Republicans, and right-wing extremists.

Kirk was an influential podcaster, hosting the Charlie Kirk Show, which had a growing following, especially among college campuses and those passionate about politics and social media. In 2012, at age eighteen, Kirk co-founded the conservative organization Turning Point USA, which the New York Times called the nation’s "pre-eminent” conservative youth organization. In 2016, under Kirk's leadership, Turning Point USA launched a website called Professor Watchlist, which targeted university professors they claimed discriminate against conservative students and promote anti-American values. A professor from Arizona listed on the website was targeted and assaulted. Several professors have reported ongoing harassment, including doxing, rape threats, and death threats. Moreover, a close friend of mine was also included on this list because her scholarly work focused on social equity and affirmative action. It was interesting that Kirk could be provocative, but no one else was afforded that right. Due to documented targeted violence against those in academia and politics, Kirk needed to be held responsible for placing others in harm’s way. He should’ve known that his actions would spark outrage and cause someone with no strong moral values to act irrationally. 

Anyone speaking negatively about non-white people from a position of white privilege contributes to racial division, especially if it’s monetized. I watched a few of Kirk’s YouTube videos, which started with Kirk pitching a sponsored product. Not that I’m against capitalism, but having mainstream sponsors co-sign his sometimes vitriolic views in the long run makes things worse. Instead of using his voice for good, Kirk was skilled at deepening those divides and possibly sought clicks and views to attract more sponsors, who knows. One clear thing is that Kirk’s religion had a profound influence on him. Still, it makes me wonder if he was using his faith to persuade other lost souls to adopt his views or if it was about fleecing them. 

Society is not one-dimensional, so it’s natural that he held strong opinions; however, I fully supported his right to express them, even if I strongly disagree. The quote attributed to Kirk that angered me, as reported by Wired (January 12, 2024), was when he said, “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.” I was born just days before it was signed into law, meaning I was born during the Jim Crow era, when Black people could have been lynched for any alleged crime. Still, the First Amendment isn't without consequences. It was acceptable when Kirk made disparaging remarks about minorities, women, immigrants, transgender people, DEI programs, abortion rights, and the LGBTQ+ community. Unfortunately, I believe he faced repercussions when he started criticizing Israel over the genocide in Palestine. Despite his intelligence, he should have recognized the risks and avoided getting involved. It wasn’t in his best interest to go down that path. By all accounts, he was more than financially stable and could have left it alone. However, something in his core values pushed him to bring up that controversial topic. Many people have been doxed, fired, and faced worse consequences for criticizing the state of Israel, but he couldn’t stay silent, nor should he have. He was an American citizen discussing an important issue and was presumably protected by the First Amendment… or was he? 

Kirk openly discussed controversial issues in other communities but never addressed “white on white” crime or questioned why white households produce so many mass shooters. Additionally, he never challenged President Donald Trump’s background, whom he helped elect. Kirk must have known about all the negative issues surrounding President Trump, including racial discrimination allegations, sexual harassment claims, failed business ventures, 34 felony convictions, and his involvement in the 2017 Capitol insurrection, which resulted in the deaths of several Capitol police officers. As a religious person, shouldn’t this matter? This question will go unanswered because few in the political conservative movement are brave enough to open that can of worms out of fear of losing office. Also, why didn’t he scrutinize the credentials of many of Trump’s cabinet appointees? One of the first executive orders Trump signed upon returning to office in 2025 was to eliminate “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” hires from the federal government.

At a speech at the University of Wyoming campus in 2025, addressing a mostly conservative white audience, Kirk said, “DEI is these force diversity recruitment departments, they are the commissars, they are the enforcement arm of critical race theory.” A little research on his part would have shown that critical race theory is an academic framework that explores why racial inequities persist despite civil rights reforms. Kirk was a critic, so it didn’t matter. However, he never challenged the credentials of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Department of Health, (who in the Latin Times in 2024, referred to President Trump as an Armchair tough guy), and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (as reported in the New Yorker that in a text message in 2024, called President Trump a probable sociopath), and many others whose credentials are suspect, and who also mocked the President. Were they the actual DEI hires, also known as those that “Didn’t Earn It?” 

Many privileged white males fail to recognize that, historically, starting at the top by controlling all resources and setting rules that benefit themselves while excluding others from decision-making, and only pointing out issues in minorities while staying silent on problems in poorer white communities, leads to racial and political conflicts. Social change often causes division, so they must learn to coexist, or the cycle of separation will continue.  

Shortly after Kirk was shot and killed, many of his supporters blamed “the radical left” and threatened retaliation. Several credible threats of bombing and shooting violence led to the lockdown of multiple HBCU campuses. When the attacker is unknown, blame is often placed on Black and Brown communities. According to the Department of Justice, “During the past decade, we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the domestic terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the United States.” White anger always seeks an outlet for its misplaced rage. However, it may have been Kirk’s support for the Second Amendment that ultimately contributed to his death. 

At a Turning Point USA Faith event in 2023, Kirk said, “It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights.” Kirk, on another occasion, when speaking about public executions, said that they should be “public, quick, and televised.” I, too, am a strong advocate for gun rights and often suggest that Americans with no criminal record and capable of passing a psychological background check should own a firearm. Kirk’s words are a self-fulfilling prophecy, if ever there was one. 

Kirk’s biggest supporter, President Trump, called for flags to be lowered to half-staff on all federal buildings, and several Democratic and Republican governors followed suit. Later, President Trump pledged to hold those responsible accountable. Social media was flooded with calls for a civil war since the election and re-election of President Trump. Yet, President Trump couldn’t bring himself to attend a Kennedy Center vigil for Kirk, opting instead to spend the weekend at his golf course in New Jersey. His attendance at Kirk’s official memorial ceremony at the State Farm Stadium in Arizona appeared more like campaign stumping with an added performance of mourning. 

A suspect, Tyler Robinson, has been taken into custody. Still, the evidence used to arrest him doesn’t seem convincing, and conspiracy theories are widespread, so I will let the legal process unfold. However, it should be noted that Kirk and his killer were created because their minds were poisoned with hateful ideologies, many of which were dehumanizing. 

Over time, outrage over Kirk’s tragic death will fade, but another charismatic figure is likely to take his place. It seems Kirk modeled himself after another controversial, privileged white male, Rush Limbaugh, whom President Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. There’s no doubt that President Trump will continue to support Kirk even more and probably bestow the same honor on him. We will see.    

My final opinion on this issue is that racism and discrimination could have been eliminated long ago. Still, some white folks are comfortable letting them persist, and have created the demand for Kirk. Kirk’s voice was dangerous partly because of his collective narcissist audience, who might not have had close personal relationships with minorities and could have challenged much of his rhetoric. Kirk wasn’t ashamed of his words, nor should anyone be criticized or negatively affected for exposing them. Multiculturalism debates could have helped Kirk reach a broader audience, but during a time of racial division, it wouldn’t have secured him lucrative sponsorship deals. 

Most importantly, although not confirmed, some neuroscientific research suggests that the human brain doesn’t fully mature until age 25. This matters because many of Kirk’s audience members may have been intelligent but lacked the critical thinking skills to understand his messages, potentially leading them astray. I wonder what their parents taught them about how they viewed other communities. As for Kirk’s older supporters, they should have known better, enjoyed his commentary, and moved on. Ironically, Kirk’s death mirrors that of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whom he criticized. Both were killed for their speech and the large followings they had, which probably threatened those in power. The motive for Kirk’s death isn’t clear. Still, it has triggered threats of vigilantism among his followers reminiscent of country singer Jason Aldean’s song, “Try that in a small town,” which critic Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones argues is a “heinous song calling for racist violence.” Sadly, even after death, Kirk’s words continue to cause division.