Is Trump truly honouring Charlie Kirk’s memory?
Kirk was a free speech advocate. He defended anyone’s right to hold any opinion anywhere. Trump, however, is increasingly restricting the free speech of his enemies.
It is questionable whether he truly is acting in his late friend’s spirit.
Kirk’s death was pivotal.
In front of a memorial crowd, Trump pledged to fight what killed him. It is believable that he was sincere, but Trump has sharp political instincts. Instinctively, he must have understood that this moment presented tragedy as well as opportunity.
While Erika Kirk forgave her husband’s killer, Trump restated his “hate” for his opponents. Self-admittedly, he was already keen on taking out the far left.
This tragedy provided him with ammunition.
Since then, Trump has proven himself more than willing to suppress freedom of speech.
Jimmy Kimmel was suspended because Brendan Carr (a Trump appointee) pressured ABC to do so. Trump cheered it on online and then encouraged NBC to do the same to its talk show hosts. Since Carr is incentivized to stay on the president’s good side, he is likely to abide by his wishes.
That means Trump has nudged the FCC towards the censorship of individuals he does not like.
He defends the First Amendment for his allies, but not his opponents (whom he confesses to hate).
But Trump’s infringements upon free speech predate Kimmel. Since it took office, his administration has revoked over 300 student visas for pro-Palestinian advocacy. It has also pressured universities to crack down on far-left ideology by threatening to withhold funding.
Supporting Hamas (if the students did) is illiberal, and so is spreading communism (if the universities are). But suppressing their opinions wholesale is at least equally problematic.
Trump is fighting authoritarianism with authoritarianism.
He is attacking illiberalism by enacting it.
His executive orders have created a chilling (stifling) effect in society, according to FIRE: The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
They warn that Trump’s executive orders have created a climate in which universities, media, and nonprofits refrain from certain viewpoints out of fear. Afraid to be targeted, they do not voice opinions that are unpopular with the president. This even concerns conservatives.
Chilling speech - even if it is to counter radicalism - makes it impossible for people to say what they think. This forces extremism underground and makes societal discourse less lively.
Trump has chosen vengeance on the Left over protecting the First Amendment.
The woke left infringe upon free speech as well, but at least their tactics are subtle. It shames, deplatforms, and cancels to get its way. Trump cracks down with a sledgehammer instead.
There is poetic justice to an illiberal movement being demolished by its own method: suppression. But the costs outweigh the benefits.
Outlawing ideas, even if they are anti-freedom, is still anti-freedom.
History is rhyming.
In the 1940s and 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy persecuted officials, academics, and artists who allegedly held communist viewpoints. He accused without evidence and destroyed careers. This also caused a chilling effect.
But he was a senator, not the commander in chief. While McCarthy had a pistol, Trump wields a bazooka.
Despite the similarities, there are also differences.
Both Trump and McCarthy have gone after others for their ideas. They have pressured individuals and organizations, leading to broad self-censorship. However, McCarthy was more extreme.
He used the law to intimidate his opponents. Trump, for now, mostly relies on regulatory pressure.
But the president’s policies could escalate into something worse.
Charlie Kirk was a self-described free speech absolutist.
He wanted others to express themselves freely, even heinously. He disliked far-leftists, but let them speak. Now, the Trump administration is muzzling others in his name.
If Kirk were still alive (and consistent in his views), he would likely object.
While censoring extremists feels just, it is not.
When government suppression of speech is normalised, anyone can use it. The Right will censor the Left, and the Left will censor the Right. This risks a vicious (McCarthyist) cycle.
Then, step by step, the problem of illiberalism gets worse. Freedom erodes.
To honor Charlie’s memory would mean to defend liberty - and stop the cycle.