On Wednesday, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed whereas talking at Utah Valley College. As of this writing, the shooter stays at giant.
Kirk was a controversial determine, and his demise shortly turned a lightning rod for opinionated social media commentary. One Republican lawmaker instructed utilizing the pressure of presidency to punish folks for posting imply issues about Kirk on-line—a transparent violation of the First Modification.
“I’ll use Congressional authority and each affect with huge tech platforms to mandate rapid ban for all times of each put up or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R–La.) posted on X. “I’ll lean ahead on this battle, demanding that huge tech have zero tolerance for violent political hate content material, the person to be banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER. I am additionally going after their enterprise licenses and allowing, their companies will probably be blacklisted aggressively, they need to be kicked from each faculty, and their drivers licenses needs to be revoked. I am principally going to cancel with excessive prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination.”
I’ll use Congressional authority and each affect with huge tech platforms to mandate rapid ban for all times of each put up or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk. In the event that they ran their mouth with their smartass hatred celebrating the heinous homicide of…
— Rep. Clay Higgins (@RepClayHiggins) September 11, 2025
Higgins’ anger is comprehensible: Even when you disagreed with Kirk, there isn’t any justification for his homicide. And there have certainly been some loathsome folks gloating about Kirk’s demise online, although anecdotally, they do not appear to signify the bulk. There are additionally loads on the best calling for violence in opposition to the left, although authorities have but to establish a suspect, a lot much less decide a motive. (And, in fact, in an age of social media algorithms, your mileage might fluctuate—my feed will not be your feed.)
However Higgins’ resolution—utilizing authorities energy to hurt folks’s livelihoods over intemperate social media posts—is blatantly unconstitutional, and it violates ideas that conservatives say they care about.
For one factor, Higgins has been no stranger to intemperate statements. Final 12 months in a put up on X, Higgins said Haiti was the “nastiest nation within the western hemisphere,” and any Haitian within the U.S. ought to “get…their ass out of our nation.” He later retracted and deleted the put up. And in October 2022, after a madman attacked the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) of their dwelling with a hammer, Higgins made light of the assault in a put up that has additionally since been deleted.
Below Higgins’ personal proposal, he could possibly be banned from all social media platforms, lose his driver’s license, and lose his proper to work sooner or later, only for having an itchy posting finger.
On the identical time, Higgins merely doesn’t have the ability to do among the issues he threatened. Enterprise licenses and drivers’ licenses are regulated on the state stage, not the federal stage. And even when he one way or the other satisfied the states to undertake his guidelines, they’d run into the identical constitutional challenges as he would on the federal stage.
“The state might not coerce personal establishments to censor speech that the state itself can not censor beneath the primary modification,” Greg Lukianoff, CEO of the Basis for Particular person Rights and Expression (FIRE), wrote on X. “Apart from, you aren’t safer for understanding LESS about what folks actually suppose.”
Being a jerk on-line will not be unlawful. Which may be inconvenient when somebody is being a jerk at your expense, nevertheless it’s a foundational precept of American regulation, and for good motive. In spite of everything, the federal government that may punish somebody for being a jerk additionally has the ability to determine what “being a jerk” means.
One individual you’d suppose would perceive that, actually, is Higgins.
Throughout his time period in workplace, President Joe Biden and members of his administration criticized social media platforms for his or her content material moderation selections. Officers routinely engaged in jawboning, issuing warnings and tips for what firms ought to do with their platforms, like what content material they need to censor and whom they need to ban—admonitions that carried the implicit backing of the federal authorities.
Conservatives have been justifiably sad about this. Republican state attorneys normal sued the Biden administration over the observe, in a case that made its method to the U.S. Supreme Court docket, although the justices finally declined to punish the federal government.
In 2023, Republican lawmakers attempting to place a cease to the observe launched Home Decision 140, the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act, which “usually prohibits federal workers from censoring the speech of others whereas appearing in an official capability.”
One of many invoice’s co-sponsors was Higgins.
“This nation was constructed on particular person freedoms, and no single group, together with the federal authorities, ought to decide what constitutes as a suitable type of speech,” Higgins mentioned on the time in a statement. “The American folks have the best to talk their truths, and federal bureaucrats shouldn’t be dictating what’s or is not true. We should proceed to uphold the First Modification as our founding fathers supposed.”
Higgins was completely proper. Now if solely he might heed his personal phrases immediately.
