The Wrong Way

Proving yet again that there is no ideological tether at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Trump administration has announced that it's going to go after left-wing organizations it contends are promoting violence.

Proving yet again that principles take a back seat to emotion, many on the Right are calling for or participating in the systematic doxxing of people who expressed happiness or similar responses to Charlie Kirk's assassination.

I am as outraged as anyone at Kirk's murder. I consider it an open affront to the principle of free speech, one of the foundational pillars of the country, and I believe it is the fruit of decades of the Left’s rhetorical excess. However, if I support the tactics the Left used to intimidate and silence dissenters, I lose something I cannot get back.

When it comes to government intervention in matters of speech, there are strict limits. While I believe that Kirk's shooter was agitated and "inspired" to violence by years of leftist bile, incitement (one of the exceptions to 1A protections) requires a much more direct connection between agitator and actor, and this administration going after organizations for hot language is a dangerous and slippery slope. Once you crack that walnut, you put yourself at the mercy of whoever in the government decides what is actionable language.

I join many from across the spectrum in criticizing Pam Bondi's talk of going after "hate speech." Kirk himself would be aghast.

I also dislike and reject the "tit-for-tat" emergence of cancel culture on the Right. Someone says something stupid on the Internet, and you want his career destroyed? All that does is reduce you to the level of those you criticized, take away your moral advantage, and create an even more pervasive chilling of speech and free interchange. No, I say let them talk, and let them condemn themselves with their own words.

Does that mean that I don't think an employer who finds something an employee said or wrote appalling should take action? Nope - what I'm saying is that you, the third party, not be the instigator. If a boss finds out that a customer-facing worker has a penchant for dropping n-bombs in regular life, should he shoulder the risk to his business (and to the livelihoods of his other employees) by not addressing it somehow? No one is entitled to a job, and barring some contractual commitments, employment is at-will in 49 states.

Proportionality and context also matter.

Consequences for saying "I'm happy he's dead, can we get his wife next?" should not ruled out due to fear of being labeled a canceler. Those cancelled in years past were taken to task over decade-old tweets or incorrect pronoun usage or making a hand gesture that someone claims meant something sinister, not the celebration or advocacy of political assassination.

As for context… someone in a public-facing job can be held to account more strictly than others. Someone whose publicly expressed views could reasonably be interpreted as signaling negatively as to their job performance could also be expected to face consequences. A doctor who expresses a belief that conservatives should be executed would present a huge liability problem for his employer.

You and I don't have to push those sorts of things along, and we shouldn't. In fact, if you want to honor Kirk's memory, you should engage in dialogue. Let people have their say, then respond and rebut logically and factually rather than letting your emotions demand a pound of flesh. If someone makes false claims, offers misquotes, or takes things out of context, correct them. If someone endorses violence, point it out, see if they mean it, and criticize them for their inhumanity. That'll do more good in the long run than seeking their destruction. Of course, if someone goes too far, if someone enters into the realm of 1A exceptions (slander, libel, perjury, intimidation, incitement), then they're fair game for suit or prosecution.

There's a right way and a wrong way to respond to Kirk's assassination. Do your best to set your “payback” emotions aside, and you'll find the better path.

As for Bondi and "hate speech?"

There is no such thing.

If she meant incitement, she should have said incitement. Using a term coined by the Left to create a false exception to the First Amendment only serves to feed narratives about fascism and validate the "hate speech" concept. Stupid and wrongheaded, and worse, it signals a lack of understanding of the liberties they all took oaths to protect.

---

I penned this piece before Disney "indefinitely suspended" Jimmy Kimmel, supposedly for stating that "the MAGA gang [is] trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them" and similar garbage. Disney's action appears to be instigated by one of ABC's primary affiliates informing the network that it would preempt Kimmel's show on its channels in the wake of his comments.

There is, quite unfortunately, a sinister cloud overlaying these actions. The head of the FCC sent a blatantly censorious signal out to the broadcasting world:

Any license granted by us at the FCC, that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest.

Beyond the obvious “do not displease the king” threat, the affiliate is in the midst of a high profile merger and is thus even more susceptible to political pressure.

Again, this is the wrong way. Late night talk shows are fading into oblivion. Kimmel was pulling just over a million viewers on average. That's fewer than one in 300 Americans, and his cohorts in those time slots aren't doing much better. I figure his show would have been canceled soon enough without any pressure from the administration, and even if it wasn’t, Kimmel is an endless fount of bile and thus a huge gift those who reject the Left.

The Biden administration pressured social media companies and the Right squawked. It’s the height of hypocrisy to applaud the Trump administration pressuring broadcasters.

It’s unnecessary self-inflicted damage. Far better to let them sink themselves with their own words than to validate the accusations of censorship. Kirk would have understood this and rejected calls for Kimmel’s cancellation.

In the immortal (and somewhat paraphrased) words of Napoleon Bonaparte:

Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.

The right way, in this case? Eliminate the FCC. Take that tool out of the government’s kit, and let the free market sort out spectrum… and whether late night hosts continue to be employed.