Should Free Speech Ever Be Curtailed?

In the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination freedom of speech has been a the subject of many columns, talk shows, and media reports, especially with the short-term suspension of Jimmy Kimmel by his network for comments he made about Kirk and re Fox News host Brian Kilmeade's comments on air about the killer of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska. In the face of the cancel culture and political correctness movements, conservatives decried how liberals sought to silence or get conservatives fired from jobs. In the aftermath of the Kimmel incident, liberals decried how conservatives sought to get him fired, while liberals pointed at Kilmeade and asked if Kimmel could be suspended, why not Kilmeade? The First Amendment is about government censorship, not private consequences, so whether the Kimmel or Kilmeade incidents are protected free speech is debatable. But either way, free speech must be defended for all, not just for partisan or ideological purposes. For more Christian commentary, see my website at www.rexmrogers.com or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers. #Kirk #Kimmel #Kilmeade #FreeSpeech #FirstAmendment

Transcript

How do we maintain freedom of speech in an era of hate speech and ideologically unacceptable views?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #227 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

For the past several years, the so-called cancel culture and political correctness movements put pressure on organizations, especially universities, to silence or fire people who shared or even held "unacceptable views." Somehow, freedom of speech was willingly sacrificed in the name of ideology.

Then, Charlie Kirk was murdered as he exercised his free speech on a university campus.  

Following this horrific nonsensical crime, conservatives, who earlier vigorously decried how liberals and the Left worked to curtail freedom of speech via cancel culture, now cheered people being fired, or they call for them to be called out or doxxed for expressing negative views on air or online about Kirk or his politics. 

Now in the interests of accuracy, we should note that many of the conservative reactions to anti-Kirk comments are pointing to those comments that endorse or call for political violence. In other words, some anti-Kirk comments celebrated his death, or called for, even named, others to be killed.

But, still, there’s a problem here. However disgusting or insensitive anti-Kirk comments may be, aren’t even these anti-Kirk media comments just “sticks and stones,” and aren’t these comments, even if ugly, still protected speech under the First Amendment? 

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified 1791, states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

American freedom of speech case law allows for distasteful even despicable comments, as long as they don’t call for violence, directly threaten, or become what in the past thirty years or so come to be called “hate speech.”

One common definition of hate speech is “any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability or national origin.” U.S. courts have ruled that restrictions on hate speech would conflict with the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of expression.  

So, free speech in the U.S. includes not only support for popular views but also the expression of unpopular, offensive, or controversial opinions. Remember the old maxim attributed to Voltaire? “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” 

An American core ideal, this protection extends to commentary on public figures, including after their deaths, again, as long as it does not cross legal lines such as defamation, threats, targeted harassment, or calls for political violence.

Maintaining a commitment to free speech gets difficult in highly emotional times like the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and it was an assassination, killed with deliberate premeditation using a long-range, high-powered hunting rifle.

Recently, it’s been liberals or the Left arguing they are being suppressed or silenced. Note the fooforaw regarding what late night host Jimmy Kimmel said about the Charlie Kirk assassination, his network ownership, ABC and Disney, suspending his show, then barely a week later restoring it on most ABC outlets. Kimmel advocates are screaming “Free speech violation,” yet the government had nothing to do with this decision.

And on the conservative side of things, here’s another example of free speech controversy. On a recent Fox program, host Brian Kilmeade and his cohost were discussing the unprovoked horrible murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska by a knife-wielding, homeless man. The cohost said if such individuals refuse mental health assistance should be sent to jail. Kilmeade responded, "Or involuntary lethal injection, or something. Just kill 'em." He later apologized, saying he made an “extremely callous” remark. Conservative Kilmeade advocates are defending him, saying it was a foolish slip-up. Liberals are arguing if Kimmel could be suspended, why not Kilmeade? Kilmeade’s comment was certainly more than callous, more than a slip-up—he called for summary execution of undesirables—he has to-date not been fired.

The tension in these situations highlight a societal confusion around free speech. For years, many conservatives criticized “cancel culture,” arguing that people were being punished socially or professionally for expressing views that deviated from progressive norms. Their concerns were warranted, for as Google just admitted, responding to pressure from the Biden Administration, the corporation suppressed conservative viewpoints on its platform and YouTube app.

So, suppression of free speech has indeed taken place. But whether suspending Kimmel or Kilmeade qualifies as a free speech matter is debatable. The First Amendment restricts government censorship, not private consequences. Employers, especially in at-will employment states, often have broad discretion to fire employees for speech that could damage the company’s image or workplace environment. So, while Kimmel’s insensitive Kirk comments and Kilmeade’s insensitive Zarutska murder comments are likely legally protected, they are not immune to social or professional backlash or consequences. 

For the record, while I strongly support the First Amendment and thus citizens’ right to freedom of speech, I don’t consider either the Kimmel or Kilmeade incident a bona fide free speech matter. I’d maintain Kimmel’s suspension because he is losing the network money, and I’d fired Kilmeade for his crude remarks calling for the execution of people he considers unworthy.

In essence, while hateful or bigoted speech is often deeply offensive, it remains protected unless it is directly linked to violence, threats, or illegal conduct. The U.S. legal system emphasizes protecting even “disturbing” speech to preserve the broader principle of free expression.

If we value free expression, we must be consistent—even when the speech offends us or targets someone we respect. If we argue that people shouldn’t lose jobs over political views, that principle ought to apply universally. Otherwise, “free speech” becomes a partisan tool rather than a shared democratic value. Defending only the speech we agree with is not defending free speech at all.

In the United States, the First Amendment protects a wide range of speech, including controversial, offensive, and unpopular ideas. But not all speech is protected.

Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment unless it falls into specific, narrowly defined exceptions established by the courts.

1.    Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action: Speech that is intended to incite or produce immediate illegal acts and is likely to do so is not protected. 

2.    True Threats or Fighting Words: Speech that communicates a serious intent to commit violence against a specific individual or group is not protected. 

3.    Harassment or Targeted Hate Crimes: Speech that is part of criminal conduct, such as stalking or hate crimes, involving intimidation or harassment.

Meanwhile, there is growing concern among free‑speech advocates that some Western democracies in Europe have increasingly curtailed online expression — particularly around topics like immigration, gender, religion, or protests — sometimes through arrests, prosecutions, or fines. 

·       In Germany, authorities carried out raids and prosecuted individuals accused of spreading hate speech online.

·       Sweden: a prosecution of a 70‑year‑old woman for what was deemed a "disparaging view of refugees" on Facebook.

·       Poland and Germany: flagged cases where anti‑immigration content was removed. 

Vice President J.D. Vance, making his first major speech in Europe, challenged leaders to show consistency: do they truly defend democratic values — including free expression — or are the limitations being applied selectively? 

There is a fear that laws against hate speech, defamation, or “offensive” commentary could become tools for political control. When citizens are arrested, sanctioned, or punished not for credible threats or incitement of violence, but for expressing unpopular or harsh views (even insensitive or inflammatory ones), critics view this as a slippery slope that chills debate.

Freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment, sits at the core of the American creed, as famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. It is not hyperbole to say this freedom is quintessentially American, and no one, liberal/the Left or conservatives should play fast and loose with this ideal.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2025   

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.