The Cost of the First Amendment

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.

~~ First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The newest craziness coming out of the Trump Regime involves "abridging the freedom of speech". They want to see people who speak or write negatively about Charlie Kirk to "suffer the consequences" of their words. They're on the lookout for anyone who posts anything on social media "celebrating" Kirk's murder and are sending that information to employers, urging them to be fired. As reprehensible as this is, in many places it's completely legal. It's usually perfectly legal in most jurisdictions to fire someone for any reason, as long it's not for being part of a protected class. The federally recognized protected classes are:

• Race and Color
• Religion
• National (or Ethic) Origin
• Sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity - although I suspect the last one will be ended by the regime)
• Age Over 40 (in employment)
• Disability
• Genetic Information
• Veteran/Military Status

The use of the term "protected class" is often misunderstood. For instance, within the "Race and Color" class, it does not mean that a minority race is a protected class of people; it means that race is a prohibited reason for discrimination in employment. Same for "Sex"; it does not mean that women are a protected class, but that the sex of an employee cannot be the basis of discrimination. 

Note that "Political Beliefs" is not a class protected from employment discrimination. Nor is "Saying Offensive Things on the Internet". At one of my past jobs I was written up for some of my internet activity, although it was not for political opinions and I wasn't fired for it. You can be summarily fired in most states for saying things on social media, whether about Charlie Kirk or not, and you have no recourse. Your neighbors can take offense at your posts and alert your employer, and there's nothing you can do about it. 

What I find hypocritical about all of this, is that not long ago the right wingers in the United States were mostly opposed to this kind of behavior. They were dead set against "cancel culture" and were in the main First Amendment absolutists. During the 2024 election I had several discussions with a Trumper friend on his Facebook page. He was very concerned about remarks Vice President Harris had made years before that he interpreted as censorship. The article I wrote about it can be found here. My friend, and people like him, were very much up in arms about this supposed censorship. Right wing Twitter ("X" by then) was overflowing with outrage about how the Democrats would take away our First Amendment right to free speech. Elon's takeover of Twitter was partly fueled by anger over harmful  disinformation being flagged and removed, as well as Trump's ban from the platform. Now, in the aftermath of the murder of one of their own, they have changed their position and are fervent cheerleaders for, not only cancel culture, but government censorship. 

A word about cancel culture:

We mostly heard about people, usually celebrities, being "canceled" because they said or did something that some people found offensive. The offended would spread the word, and before you know it tours get canceled, book sales drop, or in the case of politicians, their career is ended. But the thing is, whatever the motivation of the "canceler", it was just information. I could hear about some stupid thing my Senator did or said when he was in college and decide whether he still had my vote. I could read about the comedy routine from years back that wouldn't fly today and make my own decision whether I could let it slide. I could determine whether I thought that a joke was indeed hateful toward a subgroup of society or not. We could all take that information and act upon it or not. We could choose to give the information credence, resolve to assign it importance or just shrug our shoulders and move on. 

But that's all in the context of private citizens exercising their First Amendment right, even though they're attempting to negate another citizen's First Amendment right. What we have escalated to is the government targeting individuals for their speech. Trump, as well as several members of his dictatorial regime, have announced that they will be identifying anyone "celebrating" the death of Charlie Kirk. I don't know how they decide where the line is when defining "celebrating". If I say that the world is a better place without him, is that celebrating? If I quote his own hateful speech, is that celebrating? If I point out the moral vacuousness of he and his ilk, is that celebrating?  Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi has vowed to crack down on liberal "hate speech". To give an example of how hate speech might be defined this NY Daily News article recounts ABC reporter Jonathan Karl's question to Trump about where the line between "hate speech" and "free speech" lay. Trump's response was “She’d probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly, it’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart.”

There you go. Asking a question of the dictator is hate speech and the questioner will be "gone after". Trump followed up with: “Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech, so maybe they’ll have to go after you,” - in apparent reference to the settlement where George Stephanopoulos described a judgment against Trump as rape, when the judgment was legally defined as sexual abuse, not rape. Vice President J.D. Vance (or whatever his name is) called on people to report their neighbors who "celebrate Kirk's death" to their employers to get them fired. Stephen Miller, another high ranking cog in the regime, called for the dismantling of left wing institutions, calling them a "vast domestic terrorist movement,". 

Funny how Trump's words on and leading up to January Sixth weren't incitement according to the right, but a liberal's or a Democrat's words of opposition are terroristic. 

Sounds like abridging to me.

Dictators gonna dictate.