News commentary

The US right claimed free speech was sacred – until the Charlie Kirk killing

Media | The Guardian · J Oliver Conroy · last updated

Rightwingers had long complained of a censorious leftwing ‘cancel culture’ but seem happy to now reframe that as ‘consequence culture’

In the emotionally and politically charged days since the killing of Charlie Kirk, the conservative youth activist who was a close ally of Donald Trump, one statement has loomed large. On Monday, the US attorney general – the official in charge of the rule of law in America – said that the Trump administration would “absolutely target” those who espouse “hate speech” about Kirk.

Unlike in many other countries, hate speech is protected by US law unless it incites imminent violence or constitutes a true threat. But that did not deter the nation’s top law enforcement officer, who also suggested that – for example – a print shop employee who refused to print flyers memorializing Kirk could be “prosecuted”.

 

Related Knowledge Center: Free speech and public protest

State of Play

The First Amendment is facing challenging times: Crackdowns on campus protests prompted both-sides claims of intolerance. Attempts to head off dangerous health misinformation have been characterized as violations of free speech. Donald Trump is publicly punishing news outlets that deviate from his administration’s version of events while privately suing some outlets into submission.

The White House vs. the press  |  Voiceless America 


More informationabout Free speech and public protest

Related Knowledge Center: Democracy and politics

State of Play

News organizations are scrambling to find a coverage approach that adequately informs the American public about the country’s slide from democracy to authoritarian rule.

The White House vs. the press


More informationabout Democracy and politics

Related Knowledge Center: The White House vs. the press

State of Play

Whether it’s the Des Moines Register’s publication of an unfavorable election poll, a routine edit of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, or the Associated Press’s decision in its authoritative stylebook to continue to use “Gulf of Mexico,” Donald Trump and the White House have used executive authority and legal reprisals in an effort to punish and suppress press coverage that runs contrary to the administration’s preferred narratives.

Democracy and politics | Signalgate | The CBS submission | Voiceless America


More informationabout The White House vs. the press