In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, which I find hard to believe it’s been almost two weeks, our country has fallen into the unfortunate but all too common pattern of being selective about which American freedoms we’d like to protect and advocate for, and for whom.

Many on the far left were vehemently calling what Charlie Kirk practiced and participated in as hate speech, and some would often call into question if that speech was protected as free speech (what Charlie did wasn’t just hate speech, it was violence!). Fast forward to today, and we have many on the political right, including the attorney general of the United States Pam Bondi, saying that in this instance with many on the political left cheering at Charlie’s death, that constitutes a form of hate speech so grotesque that it is not permitted as free speech. She says, “There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech.”

And just late last week, news broke that ABC would be indefinitely suspending Jimmy Kimmel Live after Kimmel’s monologue about Charlie Kirk’s murder drew backlash from conservatives and several ABC affiliates. Major station groups pulled the show, and Disney/ABC replaced it with reruns while facing political pressure and public debate over free speech and media responsibility. And now just yesterday after a week off-air, ABC announced the late-night program would return on September 23, 2025.

With the amount of noise, chaos and misinformation regarding free speech, what is actually constitutionally protected and what isn’t, I decided to reach out to my friend Logan, lawyer and author/podcast host of Think Bitcoin, to help walk us through some major points and questions around free speech. It is my goal after all with this publication to bring you, the reader, principled takes, and hopefully help us all unite around liberal principles that transcend partisan politics. Liberal principles, rights and protections for us all, not just certain groups, or when is politically convenient.

T: Logan, what is free speech in the context of the First Amendment?

L: The First Amendment is first and foremost a protection against the federal government. It did not initially apply to the states (none of the Bill of Rights did), but, like other (but not all) of those rights, it has been held to apply to the states as well through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The history of the First Amendment and of freedom of speech generally, is a longer and much more complicated one than is commonly taught, but suffice to say that the idea broadly is that the government should have only very, very minimal grounds upon which to infringe upon your speech.

It should be noted again that this does not apply to private companies. We’re talking about the government, both federal and state.

It should further be noted that “speech,” which is never really succinctly defined, includes more than just the traditional meanings of speech we often think of (words and written texts). It also includes symbolic speech, nonverbal expression, and expressive conduct. The expressive nature is important for determining whether something is speech.

In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Court held that wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was symbolic speech, because it was expressing a message.

In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court held that flag burning was protected speech because it was expressing a political message.

There are limits to free speech. Obscenity is not protected, though the definition of obscenity is notoriously squishy. Speech that incites imminent violence is not protected, but this is a very high bar to clear. Interestingly, in the early 20th century in cases brought under the Espionage Act, this was a much lower bar to clear. Brandeis and Holmes were often writing in dissent. But jurisprudence over time has reevaluated and raised it, and the Brandeis/Holmes way of thinking ultimately won the day.

T: How does this differ between citizens and non-citizens?

L: Technically and theoretically, non-citizens also enjoy First Amendment rights. However, when immigration issues are involved it creates a murkier nexus to navigate, as Congress has broad power over immigration and is given a lot of deference. Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952, which gives the Secretary of State pretty broad authority when it comes to revoking visas. There’s language in this statute that is being debated now in light of the Mahmoud Khalil situation. The statute has the following language:

Example 1: An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible.

Example 2: An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.

Example 3: After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation. Notice of such revocation shall be communicated to the Attorney General, and such revocation shall invalidate the visa or other documentation from the date of issuance:

So it remains to be seen how these issues shake out with respect to their relationship to the First Amendment. And of course, Congress could also change the law that grants the Secretary of State this authority.

T: What is hate speech, and is it protected by the First Amendment?

L: Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Full stop. America is unique here. But despite what politicians from both sides of the aisle have told you and will continue to tell you, this isn’t even a jurisprudentially controversial topic. Hate speech is protected. What would render it unprotected is if it incited imminent violence that is likely to occur. But again, this is a high bar. Saying very nasty, offensive things is protected under the First Amendment. To be clear, you can be fired from your job for saying nasty, offensive things. The government just cannot prosecute you for them.

T: What are some notable examples of free speech court cases and their rulings. Any one stand out to you as your favorite example?

L: The most important case for free speech was probably Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) because it was a pretty groundbreakingly broad and emphatic protection of speech, holding that even speech that advocates violence is protected if the violence is not directed to incite imminent lawless action that is likely to occur. Prior to this case, previous First Amendment cases mostly upheld convictions, despite eloquent dissents from Justice Holmes and Justice Brandeis. This case changed the game and gave us our modern framework for free speech.

The case itself involved a member of the KKK giving a speech at a rally. The speech itself is absolutely vile and would fit every colloquial/cultural definition of hate speech we currently have.

Other notable cases are Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and Texas v. Johnson (1989). In Johnson, Justice Kennedy wrote a great concurrence in which he echoed a belief of Justice Scalia, namely that if you don’t have cases the ultimate results of which you don’t personally like then you are probably a bad judge. Justice Kennedy wrote that while he personally finds flag-burning deeply offensive, the Constitution compels the result that it’s protected speech.

I personally love the Brandeis concurrence in Whitney v. California (1927), which I quote from below. Justice Holmes famously introduced the “marketplace of ideas” concept in Abrams v. United States (1919). Holmes wasn’t always a fervent free speech advocate, but his views shifted over time. He and Brandeis both wrote beautifully about the First Amendment from about 1919 onward.

T: Why is it important to defend free speech, even speech we find deplorable?

L: I think Justice Louis Brandeis said it best in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, which, incidentally, was a case that actually upheld a conviction. In any case, Justice Brandeis wrote:

“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence.”

T: How can we encourage the expression of free speech for all people, and what should leaders be doing to reiterate this during our contentious and divided time?

L: I’m not sure I think there’s anything profound that individual citizens can do here other than trying to model this ideal. That means more discussion, less cancellation. More engagement, fewer silos. The same goes for leaders. They need to model the ethos of free speech by engaging with their opponents in good-faith debate. Cancellation, coercion, suppression, etc. are antithetical to competition in the marketplace of ideas.

My biggest concern, candidly, is that as a citizenry we have become so intellectually and spiritually divorced from the ethos of the Founders and our founding documents and institutions that literacy in the ideas and debates that birthed the country is diminishing with a sad rapidity. Fewer and fewer Americans read history, read Supreme Court cases, read the Constitution, etc.

T: What is the difference between censorship or deplatforming vs. infringing on free speech (Kimmel example)

L: This is a tricky one because we don’t know all the facts in the Kimmel case, but relating to that specific case the law’s pretty clear that if the FCC and the DOJ were threatening ABC and Disney because of Kimmel’s views, that’s a violation. See Justice Sotomayor’s opinion, writing for a unanimous Court, in NRA v. Vullo (2024):

“Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against a third party “to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 67 (1963). Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”

That being said, ABC and Disney are also totally entitled to make business decision with their personnel. If they want to terminate or suspend Jimmy Kimmel because they don’t like what he said, the First Amendment is not a legal impediment. Recall that the First Amendment is a protection against the government – not against private companies.

If you stuck around long enough to read to this point, clearly you care about free speech and studying the complexities and importance of it for American society and our liberal values. One thing is abundantly clear to me — it’s up to us, the citizenry, to care. Our politics feel more divided than ever, social media inflames these fights, and it causes us to feel isolated and separated into our tribes rather than one country under the same rule of law and constitutional freedoms. It starts with me, you, us.

Lean in to debate. Lean into calling for the protection and rights of everyone to speak, especially that speech you disagree with most. Take a principled stand. The founders had a profound sense of how special, and fragile, the new government they were creating was. We must daily fight for it choose it, or it will crumble.

I am a husband, father to a young daughter, and someone who deeply loves this country. What happened to Charlie, his family, and to the fabric of our ever politicized and fractured society, is a tragedy. It hit me in personal and profound ways, and as a moment to seize, act on, get involved, and help figure out…

Where the hell do we go from here?

My personal background gives me some unique experience and perspective into how I analyze recent events, reflect on them, and propose strategies for us all to move forward and reconcile with this. I grew up evangelical Christian in Lynchburg, VA (yes, home of Liberty University and Jerry Falwell’s politically energized evangelical movement). But for the past 15 years of my life I’ve lived in liberal Massachusetts, and I myself am a liberal (perhaps recovering progressive) and no longer religious (say agnostic if you must). I have a deep familiarity with Charlie Kirk’s world of evangelical Christianity, his appeal, the connection to politics and movements, while at the same time having deep familiarity and understanding of the modern progressive movement and the air I breathe here in Massachusetts.

These two worlds - the MAGA right (which also includes Kirk’s movement, evangelical Christians, and growing numbers of conservatives and newcomers to the right), and the progressive left (including what many may consider “woke”, democratic socialist, etc.) are defining our cultural and political moment as a nation, particularly post 2020/Covid.

Understanding both these worlds, and having strong conviction that it’s well past time a new center-left, moderate majority reemerge in American society and politics, I’m creating this publication - Liberal Ground. It will hopefully appeal to what I truly believe is actually the majority of Americans, those not on the fringe hogging the airwaves, but those that deep down know and feel America is special, unique and only America because we all have shared ideals in our liberal system - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, the bill of rights, constitution, rule of law, free speech, these incredible ideals worth fighting for. This will continue to crumble, and fast, if we don’t all agree on these ideals.

Now, for a word on what I’ve seen in terms of response to Charlie’s assassination and legacy.

His death was an horrific tragedy and attack on free speech. Regardless of what comes to fruition in terms of investigation regarding his assassin, clearly this individual was unwell, violent and seeking chaos and havoc. As a father, and someone known to have passionate and outspoken views and convictions I’m not afraid to share, I couldn’t help but think - if it can happen to Charlie, it can happen to me.

Now, as a liberal and agnostic Charlie and I disagreed on a ton. I don’t share his personal beliefs and Christian worldview on a range of issues. But Charlie was not a fascist, or a Nazi - he was an American that believed in liberal democracy, and on multiple occasions professed his faith and views but repudiated and never advocated for theocracy. He deeply understand our liberal, democratic roots and pluralism, while holding firm to his convictions.

I have been so disappointed in the segment of the left, including some friends, who posted on social media cheerful posts of his murder. “What goes around comes around!” “Today is a great day!” “Well he asked for it!” The numbers of these I saw were not just a tiny minority…it was unfortunately a decent amount, enough to warrant us calling it out. And by us, I mean all Americans and in particular political leaders and those who would consider themselves on the left. Our liberal democracy requires a respect and appreciation for free speech rights. Not just speech you agree with, but even (and especially) speech you disagree with.

This isn’t a post to get into the merits of what he talked about. That’s besides the point right now. This post is to articulate that gleeful response to political violence is wrong, and we must course correct, look deep withing (not just point fingers) to move forward and heal our country. And this needs to be said - it’s not just enough for us on the left, and political leaders - to put out one tweet denouncing all political violence. In reality, the leftists, and those applauding Charlie’s death, are not just a minority voice on the left/democratic side. They have been growing, and recruiting. They also openly, consistently profess their hate for America and fellow Americans. When do we on the center left say enough is enough?

It is not too late to combat this, deescalate, and pull back to the sane, center left position. We need to stop being complacent and captured by this segment of the extreme left (who many don’t even vote democrat anyway because no one passes their purity test). This is not the time to whataboutism with the right. It’s time to be morally courageous and say the extreme views and violence performed and applauded by the left needs to stop, now. It is not welcome, and there is no place for it in American society. And the democratic party, media, American society needs to stop bending to its pressures.

This moment has mobilized folks on the right and even politically disconnected conservatives like I’ve never seen in my lifetime. They are angry, scared and motivated - and I totally get why. And unfortunately, many political leaders on the right are calling for further state action and infringement on free speech from this event — something Charlie would be vehemently against.

It is time for the sane, center left majority to take control of the movement and politics from the left. I am answering this call, and I hope you’ll join me. A return, or an evolution to, the center for the left is not a return to establishment, neo-con, corporate, do nothing the system’s not broken policies and candidates. It’s the admission that America is a liberal democracy, we can be the big tent that welcomes everyone, and no longer will we prioritize front and center issues and policies that are 90/10 (90% unfavorable 10% favorable) on the national stage. We will not be held hostage by the radical left. It’s a return to common sense, get shit done, listen to and don’t talk down to Americans. No purity contests, no woke litmus tests. Real authenticity and care for our country and its people.

If not us, then who? I believe this is a defining moment. Let’s heed the warning and call - to unite, move forward, and work together where we can all live in peace and harmony, while of course veraciously debating and fighting for our causes and beliefs without resorting to consistent cancel culture, or even worse - violence.