There needs to be a distinction made between Free Speech and Hate Speech, before freaks like Alex Jones poison anymore minds. MAGA seems to get their panties in a twist whenever we criticize their rhetoric, but the majority of their podcasts simply spew hate and racism.
Unfortunately for his children, the world is a better place without the likes of Charlie Kirk. Token thoughts and prayers for Kirk. Deep and heartfelt thoughts and prayers for the dozens of children gunned down each year in America.
But I am convinced that nobody should get killed because of what he/she/it says. Even if those words are horrible.
I've read some of the words of this Kirk fellow and they are indeed horrible. His words on race (he's a full blown white supremacist who thinks his skin color makes him some kind of superman not to be 'greatly replaced') - debating (he's always right and the others are stupid) - gender and reproductive rights (no comment.... what a freak) - gun violence - immigration - Islam.
Let's say that I'm glad I never met the guy because I really don't like him.
I'm with you on "nobody should get killed because of what he/she/it says." This is partly because I've been close-up with people who might have killed me or people I admire because of what *we* were saying. I'm OK with laws against inciting violence, although in practice it's hard to prove a connection between the incitement and a violent act. Especially when someone is "incited" by something he heard on TV or in a chat room. Ethically and morally we're responsible if someone we have no connection with carries out our suggestion, but legally? I don't think so.
In a different time and place, Charlie Kirk, Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, and the rest of them would be cranks on a soapbox ranting at passersby. It's economic power that lifts such people from obscurity and gives them a vast reach.
And the ability of algorithms to amplify the cranks is certainly connected to economic power. I see a lot of attention being paid today to the amplification problem.
Now you make me think of that scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian.
The scene where all the prophets stand next to each other on boxes in the marketplace. Each of them predicting doom, enlightenment, apocalyptic endings in some different way while the market-goers pass by, buy there stuff and sometimes stop to listen for a couple of seconds.
Nobody gets hurt and the prophets can say whatever it is they are saying.
That is indeed the space where the Loomers, the Joneses, the Kirks should have their spot. They can shout their "truths" all day long while we do not need to listen and nobody gets hurt.
Ah, but that is not good enough, Marc. Not until we all acknowledge, finally, that their Truth is....The Only Truth. And that does mean 'ALL of us', dammit.
Ever notice that the most religious parts of the world are amongst the most violent? How ofen does one hear of two atheists wanting to kill each other over their differences of opinion about the non-existence of a caring and loving, munificent God?
What I notice is that the male-dominated parts of the world are the most violent. Yes, I realize that's not fair because virtually all the human-occupied parts of the world are dominated by men. At the same time, I don't see a huge difference between religions and political ideologies. Notice how "secular" ideologies often elevate the supreme leader to godlike status?
How would atheists fare as leaders of a modern state? Interesting question. Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, and Maoists claimed to be atheists; IMO they had gods, but their gods were secular and they didn't claim their scriptures were divinely inspired.
Susanna... Thank you. You are the first person I am aware of (other than myself) to equate religion and politics. I think religion is just an other form of politics, They are both ways of controlling (or trying to) people and societies.
Totally agree with you. I have concerns about defamatory speech and believe it must be addressed in some way, but murder is horrifying and no solution at all...
But what constitutes "hate speech" is mostly in the mind of the hearer, and different hearers hear things differently. Many white-wingers think advocating for DEI is hate speech because they equate it with hating white people. In the course of my life I've heard plenty of anti-woman and anti-gay/lesbian hate speech from left-leaning men.
I believe that the serious problem with "hate speech" generally isn't the speech itself but the fact that it's amplified by well-funded and far-reaching media outlets. The Fairness Doctrine isn't coming back any time soon, but this is what we have to deal with: there's a big market for hate speech (or "shock speech") and billionaires, multimillionaires, and corporations are happy to fund and provide it.
"... there's a big market for hate speech (or "shock speech")..."
I listen to Hate Radio on Mondays and Thursdays: as I drive around, doing chores, getting in-and-out of the vehicle, catching bits and pieces of commentary....Sean Hannity; Clay and Buck; Dan Bongino ( prior to the gov. gig); Guy Benson; Jesse Kelly; Lars Larsen (Washington, Oregon, Idaho)--many of them on a station (Seattle) that bills itself "The Patriot". Different people, different personalities; varying levels of animation, shrillness, invective, but... ultimately, firmly staying on one general topic: "It's All Wrong". Folks.
What I've noticed:
-Hatred is the one Subject. Topics that help further it are brought up, unrelentingly.
-very often in general terms, general references: 'They are teaching terrible things to our schoolkids'; 'They want open borders'; 'They're forcing kids to transition'
- events of the day are used, to underline the excessess of the Far Left. A 'one of' event/incident in Maine or Arizona will represent What The Left Is Trying To Do to America
-most shows are interactive, with listeners being 'thanked, very much APPRECIATED (Hannity excellent at this), and blessed'. The Listener wants to very much agree with what the Host, or their guest is saying; the Host validates, celebrates, and acknowledges them--how well they see What's Really Going On....and their basic decency. Thank you so much for calling.
- opposing views are 'welcome': Lars Larsen has 'naysayers', and like Charlie Kirk, they go to 'the front of the line' to debate the Host. When the Host is lucky, they've got an angry, incoherent individual on the line that they can make fun of; when not, they'll interrupt the point that's being made with' do you mean' and whataboutisms. Then accuse the caller of being scattered and belligerent. Hang up; condescendingly thanking them for their call. Well, there's the Radical Left for you.
-actual events of the day are commented on, if they example " It's all Wrong". Happenings that betray GOP narrative, or make trump look foolish? Ignored. Or spun as Radical Left Lies.
Cult Radio. Freedom of Screech.
( One of the forces enabling the decline of America.)
A radio network HQ'd in Seattle and owned by ultra-right men extends across Idaho and Montana into western North Dakota. It is the single most powerful political force in Montana where the Saturday pre-dawn talk show is playing in the truck on the way to the farm and garden store. A well-placed political ad here can change outcomes.
When FBI raided Michael Cohen on behalf of Robert Mueller, they found files for only two clients, Trump and Hannity. So, yeah, Sean Hannity is very good at something he does, possibly on behalf of Putin.
Do you notice they don't have any comedy? They don't really laugh. No humor--especially self-deprecating humor. And who do they hate the most? Elites? Arrogance and ignorance is a mean combination.
And, also, it feels safe to be cynical and angry. A person who choses cynicism doesn't have to do anything, can feel smart and right, doesn't have to feel guilty. (But it doesn't lead to any happiness. I think it's an addiction, like heroin.)
The oligarchs mostly are members of the extraterrestrial species which seeks to take over Earth. They'll need violence to complete their work, but they'd like as many humans as practical to kill each other off.
Deep and heartfelt thoughts and prayers for all of the people stepping forward to honestly speak without discrimination or evil partisan rhetoric. For those who have already been murdered and for those who will be murdered. If you are murdered in the marketplace, there will quickly be no marketplace, only positions of defense, offense and refuge.
Speech doesn’t exist in a vacuum, detached from emotion, identity, and consequence. That’s not how humans work.
Language shapes behavior. We internalize it, react to it, and often act on it. Dehumanizing speech doesn’t just float in the ether, it embeds itself in culture, policy, and relationships. It primes people to see others as threats, as less-than, as disposable. That’s not theoretical; it’s observable across history and psychology.
Violence rarely erupts spontaneously. It’s cultivated through repetition, normalization, and rhetoric that numbs empathy and inflames fear. Words don’t pull triggers, but they can load the gun.
To dismiss the power of language is to misunderstand the architecture of human behavior. We don’t just act, we narrate, justify, and rehearse our actions through speech. That’s why words matter. That’s why they can wound, and why they must warn.
And if this provokes a response, especially one that insists speech is harmless, it only proves the point. Words move people. That’s why they matter. That’s why they must be used with care.
I’m a professor of Behavioral Economics and Cognitive Neuroscience.
Long ago, the Supreme Court ruled that all speech is protected under the Constitution, even the worst "hate speech." Making a distinction between free speech and hate speech is ultimately disingenuous. Disagreement and the freedom of self expression are essential to a functioning democracy.
From my reading about hate speech, It is only unlawful if it leads to an unlawful act. Otherwise, you can be as rude and as crude as you want. If nobody takes it as a reason to take some action that it unlawful then it is still just freedom of speech, no matter how tasteless or unkind.
I was going to put up a Twitter post, even though it’s not something I feel is tasteful or would normally say, saying “Charlie Kirk: BANG!” as an example of tasteless but still free speech. But then I would get all the extremist right wing nut jobs attacking me, even if I explained that it is still free speech, but they wouldn’t understand or even read the entire post, and I would get threats personally. I’m not willing to put myself through that bulls*t. They really are provoked by whatever they see they don’t agree with, but that doesn’t mean what I posted was unlawful and I’m still entitled to free speech.
When did we come to this low point of division and hate in this country, that the 1st amendment becomes limited? When the vice president publicly says on Kirk’s podcast to doxx anyone who says something about Kirk, we’re in a dark place.
I know you are correct about the 1st amendment, as well as not posting your example of free speech.
If America manages to wrestle democracy back from the grasp of MAGA insanity, there should be a few changes made, to reflect the cultural changes that have occurred since the Constitution was written.
While imagining a new uncorrupted government that actually serves the masses, why not imagine making a few adjustments. The 2nd amendment could definitely use a little fine tuning.
Brilliant, helpful and most timely. Some people even wear hats proclaiming that they are right about everything. Others strangle discussion at birth by demanding "Prove me wrong".
Karen: I’ve seen many posts from 9/11 “truthers” (ie delusions) in the last couple of days. They ask for proof that the World Trade Centers were NOT a “controlled demolition” (I think that story places Jews holding the detonators?). Despite posts from people who witnessed the attack and those who lost loved ones and all the videos, photographs, etc., they cling to the “no planes” narrative. Think about how self-righteous you must be to still assert that the world is wrong but YOU are correct? I admit that I truly wish I could slap them - but not shoot them.
Charlie Kirk was a polemicist, not a genuine debater, a community college dropout trying to cast himself in the role of MAGA's answer to William Buckley. Many conservatives have been praising him for his courage in debating 'liberals' openly and standing up unashamedly for his controversial and frankly obnoxious views. The truth is rather different. He was a self-professed pupil of Rush Limbaugh, another ghastly recipient of a Trump Presidential Medal of Freedom. He was always surrounded by hundreds of his own followers in the Turning Point USA movement - liten to them cheering his remarks about school shootings just before the fatal shot was fired. Utah's gun laws allow people to carry high-powered rifles on campus. Somehow, I don't think that there were many young people at that rally who were remotely inimical to Kirk's views.
To claim that Kirk was a moderate who rejected violence is ridiculous. He just didn't engage himself in violence or directly urge people to use violence, because he didn't need to - his supporters got the message.
It's also worth bearing in mind the range of Kirk's influence across the world. He has addressed MAGA-like movements in South Korea and Japan. He has debated at the Cambridge student union.
Thank you. Somebody needed to say this. It seems that Kirk's reply to the question he was asked just before he was killed, "How many trans people have carried out mass shootings?" was "Too many." Those are not the words of someone who is interested in a discussion with his opponents.
I agree, Karen. He was almost always surrounded by his supporters and when he was in a genuine debate, he would quickly get into trouble arguing his case.
Interesting example of someone who, with extreme confidence, acts like they know everything, has the gift of blather & doesn't listen to their knowledgable superiors. Glad no one in our government has those qualities (sarcasm).
Thank you, Russell! While I don’t believe murder is justified, I have wasted no time”on “thoughts and prayers” about Kirk. The modern “live by the sword die by the sword” just replaces “swords” with guns and social media.
I wonder, Marge, whether his poor wife shares his belief that his death was 'worth it' to protect the freedom to bear arms? She apparently has a doctorate in biblical studies so the concept of martyrdom won't be alien to her. Many on the right are now calling Kirk a martyr for right wing values and I'm guessing that it won't be long before a number of fulsome hagiographies will be hitting the bookshops in time for Christmas
Sigh. I also wonder if Trump might turn his death into a Reichstag moment? I worried about the shooting (by an apparently trans shooter) could also lead up to a Trump mega-reaction.
I know nothing about Kirk’s wife and won’t assume…. But honestly, I don’t pray, so I am not withholding my prayers for any of them. Believing that a god would listen to me and act accordingly is reminiscent of flattering our President to give you whatever you ask. I can’t believe in a Trumpian god.
It's already happening, Marge. People are being fired in the media for any wrong word about the obnoxious Kirk. A secret service agent was fired yesterday for complaining about a racist and misogynistic post by Kirk about a black congresswoman. Hegseth has ordered officials at the 'Department of (Culture) War' to scour social media to find any adverse comments by staff about the saintly Kirk. Trump has warned universities that they should do the same in the case of recalcitrant professors. Kirk actually ran a site to identify professors who opposed his appalling views.
Thank you for your recent post on the distinction between “free speech” and “me speech.” Your reflections offered clarity at a time when public discourse feels increasingly distorted by power and influence.
I’ve found myself growing deeply concerned with how centrist voices often sanitize or downplay the dangers of fascism, especially when it comes cloaked in the language of neutrality or balance. In doing so, they sometimes reinforce the status quo—a fusion of corporate and state interests—that undermines genuine democratic values. Much of the mainstream media, rather than holding power to account, seems increasingly compliant, choosing to serve the dominant narrative rather than challenge it. This trend feels less like journalism and more like appeasement.
I am impatient and angry about the constant barge.
Your point about “me speech” is especially timely. Too often, we see influential figures using the banner of “free speech” to shield themselves from criticism while silencing or marginalizing others. They manipulate the concept to protect their platforms, not to foster open dialogue. As you rightly note, this erodes the very meaning of free speech and creates a culture where dissent is punished, not protected.
At the same time, I find myself struggling with the ethical and emotional complexity of defending free speech when it includes hate speech and how this goes on without unaccountabilty. It’s hard to reconcile the abstract principle with the real harm that certain kinds of speech can cause—especially when it targets vulnerable communities or undermines the institutions that protect social safety net. Balancing the protection of civil liberties with the imperative to prevent harm is not easy. We have watched indoctrination events on college campuses. But as you suggest, the answer lies in nurturing free speakers, not just tolerating all speech indiscriminately.
Your vision of a “free speaker” as someone shaped by care, education, and empathy resonates deeply. We need more public voices who embody humility, who listen as much as they speak, and who recognize that the search for truth is ongoing—not owned by any one ideology or class.
Thank you again for your work. Your writing continues to offer, in writing this it now seems naive, guidance for those of us who still believe that truth and courage matter in public life.
Trump and Musk are two of the most obvious practitioners of “me speech.” They also share a common disregard for truth and anything resembling the common good.
More than troubling, more than dangerous bodes the culture war talk from the far right.
The U.S.’s far right now echoes Putin and all his worst Eastern Orthodox priests. They join in hating a West where non-whites have some mobility, women have freedom, gays may have public life, and where no one need submit to any religious dogma.
I thought it was bad that elite U.S. meritocracy used testing to levy on all its uniform neutered voice. I thought it was bad how testing relied on the conceits of causalities all linear only – when real life in nature, in humans seriously involves the serendipitous, the contradictory, the multi-layered, the chaotic, and the complicated.
But these U.S. far-right cultural warriors aligned with Putin and his priests all loom much more deadly than how our corporate elites want to package all in mere group think and commercialism. They aim, rather, for an atavism of feudal imagination combining police state with conformity, glee at violence, and rule by arbitrary thugs none can question – even as their Charlie Kirk gladly took questions.
Very well said, as usual. On the general subject of precision in speaking, I'd add that Kirk's death was not an "assassination," despite the prevalence of that term in the reporting. He was never a public official, so it was a murder. It's still terrible and should be condemned by all, but "assassination" adds a whole level of emotional intensity that stirs passions, not thoughtfulness.
I agree. When I hear he was "assassinated", it gives him a level importance he didn't deserve. At the end of the day, he's some guy with a big mouth and small mind that got shot.
Thank you, Professor. Certain terms, when overused or callously misused need to be refreshed and returned to its place in critical discourse. This is often the job of the poet, but your essay has performed this essential task. Your work has never been more necessary or appreciated. Again, thank you.
In essence Charlie Kirk was the victim of a school shooting. He was the target, so it is murder. I appreciate the distinction between "free speech" and "me speech" along with the idea of the "free speaker". I never listened to anything coming from the mind and mouth of young Charlie. He had the "gift" of being so brazen he was viewed by the monied interests who supported him as their own tool for their own enrichment purposes. There have always been charlatans preying on a gullible, worried, angry populace. He was one of those. And his talent took him to the top...he became fabulously wealthy. In the German language the word "Gift" means "Poison". That's what this young man peddled, from the age of 18 until his death at age 31. Sadly, the gift poisoned him and others. Outwardly successful by the usual shallow standards. Inside nothing but disdain and hate. I do not believe he began life filled with the revulsion he felt for others. He learned that somewhere from someone, some place, some other humans. Seemingly having little to no empathy for others, it never occurred to him that he too could and would die as all creatures die. I fear for what his children may have already learned in his company. Despite the martyrdom being bestowed on him, he was no martyr. He was a rich white "christian" nationalist who made the free choice to walk the path he chose. IMO he sowed hate, grief, and injustice. That seems to be the MO of " me speech". That's how you can recognize it. You can choose to listen. Or you can walk away and help others to do the same.
I believe that in a world (the USA certainly now) where truth is blurred, ethics are lost, and intellect is rare, the marketplace of ideas falters. This means that we are not only losing our political freedom to speak, but also explains our current loss of market freedom (Trumpolino's tariffs being the dark example of that), our scientific freedom (NSA, NIH, CDC are dark examples of that, thanks RFK Jr), our freedom to learn, our freedom to build businesses, etc. are all being eroded by the day to day words and actions of Trumpolino and his pre-enlightened horde. Jumping to damaging conclusions without facts or evidence is just another example of blurred (or non existent ethics). How can we negotiate the "complicated" in a time when the marketplace (trading) of ideas has faltered.
When I put all you have said and all I have read and seen together, the slogan on the red hat explains the driving force behind this takeover. Like so much of what is said by the current administration, they mean the exact opposite. Make America Great Again? This means Make America come to its knees. Destroy America and her troublesome Constitution. Take over America, and not only America, and use her people for their own ends. First, let’s save and protect Ukraine. They are our front line.
Simple, bruce: "we negotiate the 'complicated'" when schools guide us in seeing others.
This of course goes totally opposite the prevailing grouping, stereotyping, and labeling which social media algorithms feed.
Also opposite the rationality and linearity conceits by which testing neuters all.
Schools can have teachers instead who relish the skills, the arts, available for seeing, quoting others as individuals in their circumstances, their issues, contexts, communities.
I like this as a general cautionary distinction. But what seems more important in the Charlie Kirk case is the distinction between free speech and hate speech.
Not speech-related but an interesting observation from a Ukrainian military chaplain with whom I have been corresponding. This is an excerpt from his reply to a message I sent him yesterday:
“I must confess the funny truth of why I didn’t respond yesterday: here in Kyiv we have been sleeping practically all day and night, catching up on rest in advance. The secret is that Trump's adviser Keith Kellogg is currently in Kyiv for 2 days, and when he is here, we have no attacks at all—no sirens.”
I am sure that this is just a coincidence but then again, I don't have any representative of the Russian Federation on speed dial (for clarity's sake, yes, I am being facetious).
In underreported news, Jake Hieu Quoc Nguyen, 28, a veteran marine, was found shot to death and left by the side of a road in Texas after completing his work shift. Texas averages more than 4K gun deaths per year, which is roughly 10% of the total national tally. Why hasn’t the national guard been sent in to reduce crime? https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/gun-violence-data/state-gun-violence-data/texas Jake was a veteran of the US Marine Corps but was left by the side of the road like a piece of trash. Where is the outrage? Where are the presidential tributes and promises of posthumous medals? Where is the manhunt? Meanwhile, 46,728 US residents had the same COD as Kirk in 2023. No wonder media outlets outside of the US are printing the Kirk headline below the fold.
Freedom of speech, like freedom of religion, is often taken as “the freedom to inflict mine on you.” Many so called pilgrims who came to this country came NOT for freedom OF religion but for freedom to practice THEIR OWN religion, and if their religion is the only legitimate one, that flies in the face of freedom of religion. This feels a lot like that to me.
The essay was such a timely reminder to be curious instead of cocky. I needed to hear it. Thanks.
JE: The John Roberts SCOTUS has been taking that exact approach (read American Crusade: How the Supreme Court is Weaponizing Religious Freedom by Andrew L Seidel — a frightening book). Tearing down the separation between Church and State is one of the worst horrors yet.
All part of the plan, right? Christian Nationalists tear down as they build up, I guess, bc they have to. There’s no room for both. Sick MFers. Thank you for the title! Trying to finish Strongmen. I find I have to read this stuff slowly but then that prolongs the pain
There needs to be a distinction made between Free Speech and Hate Speech, before freaks like Alex Jones poison anymore minds. MAGA seems to get their panties in a twist whenever we criticize their rhetoric, but the majority of their podcasts simply spew hate and racism.
Unfortunately for his children, the world is a better place without the likes of Charlie Kirk. Token thoughts and prayers for Kirk. Deep and heartfelt thoughts and prayers for the dozens of children gunned down each year in America.
I don't do prayers because I don't do religion.
But I am convinced that nobody should get killed because of what he/she/it says. Even if those words are horrible.
I've read some of the words of this Kirk fellow and they are indeed horrible. His words on race (he's a full blown white supremacist who thinks his skin color makes him some kind of superman not to be 'greatly replaced') - debating (he's always right and the others are stupid) - gender and reproductive rights (no comment.... what a freak) - gun violence - immigration - Islam.
Let's say that I'm glad I never met the guy because I really don't like him.
But being killed? No.
I'm with you on "nobody should get killed because of what he/she/it says." This is partly because I've been close-up with people who might have killed me or people I admire because of what *we* were saying. I'm OK with laws against inciting violence, although in practice it's hard to prove a connection between the incitement and a violent act. Especially when someone is "incited" by something he heard on TV or in a chat room. Ethically and morally we're responsible if someone we have no connection with carries out our suggestion, but legally? I don't think so.
In a different time and place, Charlie Kirk, Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, and the rest of them would be cranks on a soapbox ranting at passersby. It's economic power that lifts such people from obscurity and gives them a vast reach.
And the ability of algorithms to amplify the cranks is certainly connected to economic power. I see a lot of attention being paid today to the amplification problem.
Great observation!
Agreed Susanna.
Now you make me think of that scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian.
The scene where all the prophets stand next to each other on boxes in the marketplace. Each of them predicting doom, enlightenment, apocalyptic endings in some different way while the market-goers pass by, buy there stuff and sometimes stop to listen for a couple of seconds.
Nobody gets hurt and the prophets can say whatever it is they are saying.
That is indeed the space where the Loomers, the Joneses, the Kirks should have their spot. They can shout their "truths" all day long while we do not need to listen and nobody gets hurt.
"They can shout their "truths" all day long..."
Ah, but that is not good enough, Marc. Not until we all acknowledge, finally, that their Truth is....The Only Truth. And that does mean 'ALL of us', dammit.
Ever notice that the most religious parts of the world are amongst the most violent? How ofen does one hear of two atheists wanting to kill each other over their differences of opinion about the non-existence of a caring and loving, munificent God?
What I notice is that the male-dominated parts of the world are the most violent. Yes, I realize that's not fair because virtually all the human-occupied parts of the world are dominated by men. At the same time, I don't see a huge difference between religions and political ideologies. Notice how "secular" ideologies often elevate the supreme leader to godlike status?
How would atheists fare as leaders of a modern state? Interesting question. Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, and Maoists claimed to be atheists; IMO they had gods, but their gods were secular and they didn't claim their scriptures were divinely inspired.
Brilliant comment, Susanna.
Susanna... Thank you. You are the first person I am aware of (other than myself) to equate religion and politics. I think religion is just an other form of politics, They are both ways of controlling (or trying to) people and societies.
Totally agree with you. I have concerns about defamatory speech and believe it must be addressed in some way, but murder is horrifying and no solution at all...
But what constitutes "hate speech" is mostly in the mind of the hearer, and different hearers hear things differently. Many white-wingers think advocating for DEI is hate speech because they equate it with hating white people. In the course of my life I've heard plenty of anti-woman and anti-gay/lesbian hate speech from left-leaning men.
I believe that the serious problem with "hate speech" generally isn't the speech itself but the fact that it's amplified by well-funded and far-reaching media outlets. The Fairness Doctrine isn't coming back any time soon, but this is what we have to deal with: there's a big market for hate speech (or "shock speech") and billionaires, multimillionaires, and corporations are happy to fund and provide it.
"... there's a big market for hate speech (or "shock speech")..."
I listen to Hate Radio on Mondays and Thursdays: as I drive around, doing chores, getting in-and-out of the vehicle, catching bits and pieces of commentary....Sean Hannity; Clay and Buck; Dan Bongino ( prior to the gov. gig); Guy Benson; Jesse Kelly; Lars Larsen (Washington, Oregon, Idaho)--many of them on a station (Seattle) that bills itself "The Patriot". Different people, different personalities; varying levels of animation, shrillness, invective, but... ultimately, firmly staying on one general topic: "It's All Wrong". Folks.
What I've noticed:
-Hatred is the one Subject. Topics that help further it are brought up, unrelentingly.
-very often in general terms, general references: 'They are teaching terrible things to our schoolkids'; 'They want open borders'; 'They're forcing kids to transition'
- events of the day are used, to underline the excessess of the Far Left. A 'one of' event/incident in Maine or Arizona will represent What The Left Is Trying To Do to America
-most shows are interactive, with listeners being 'thanked, very much APPRECIATED (Hannity excellent at this), and blessed'. The Listener wants to very much agree with what the Host, or their guest is saying; the Host validates, celebrates, and acknowledges them--how well they see What's Really Going On....and their basic decency. Thank you so much for calling.
- opposing views are 'welcome': Lars Larsen has 'naysayers', and like Charlie Kirk, they go to 'the front of the line' to debate the Host. When the Host is lucky, they've got an angry, incoherent individual on the line that they can make fun of; when not, they'll interrupt the point that's being made with' do you mean' and whataboutisms. Then accuse the caller of being scattered and belligerent. Hang up; condescendingly thanking them for their call. Well, there's the Radical Left for you.
-actual events of the day are commented on, if they example " It's all Wrong". Happenings that betray GOP narrative, or make trump look foolish? Ignored. Or spun as Radical Left Lies.
Cult Radio. Freedom of Screech.
( One of the forces enabling the decline of America.)
A radio network HQ'd in Seattle and owned by ultra-right men extends across Idaho and Montana into western North Dakota. It is the single most powerful political force in Montana where the Saturday pre-dawn talk show is playing in the truck on the way to the farm and garden store. A well-placed political ad here can change outcomes.
When FBI raided Michael Cohen on behalf of Robert Mueller, they found files for only two clients, Trump and Hannity. So, yeah, Sean Hannity is very good at something he does, possibly on behalf of Putin.
Do you notice they don't have any comedy? They don't really laugh. No humor--especially self-deprecating humor. And who do they hate the most? Elites? Arrogance and ignorance is a mean combination.
Interesting comment: "... firmly staying on one general topic: 'It's All Wrong.'"
Susanna, I often wonder WHY these oligarchs want to amplify hate speech. Perhaps it is only because hate = clicks =
$$ in many ways: algorithms place advertisements where people are clicking? Or is there some deeper reason?
Yes, $$.
And, also, it feels safe to be cynical and angry. A person who choses cynicism doesn't have to do anything, can feel smart and right, doesn't have to feel guilty. (But it doesn't lead to any happiness. I think it's an addiction, like heroin.)
WHY these oligarchs want to amplify hate speech.
As you note Marge, Hate is lu-cra-tive!!
Don't think, don't observe; just feeeeeel.
Motto: 'when you make emotional decisions, we make money'
The oligarchs mostly are members of the extraterrestrial species which seeks to take over Earth. They'll need violence to complete their work, but they'd like as many humans as practical to kill each other off.
The speech designed to inflame can earn one a living and a death. https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/bilious-hate-mongering?r=3m1bs
Deep and heartfelt thoughts and prayers for all of the people stepping forward to honestly speak without discrimination or evil partisan rhetoric. For those who have already been murdered and for those who will be murdered. If you are murdered in the marketplace, there will quickly be no marketplace, only positions of defense, offense and refuge.
Speech doesn’t exist in a vacuum, detached from emotion, identity, and consequence. That’s not how humans work.
Language shapes behavior. We internalize it, react to it, and often act on it. Dehumanizing speech doesn’t just float in the ether, it embeds itself in culture, policy, and relationships. It primes people to see others as threats, as less-than, as disposable. That’s not theoretical; it’s observable across history and psychology.
Violence rarely erupts spontaneously. It’s cultivated through repetition, normalization, and rhetoric that numbs empathy and inflames fear. Words don’t pull triggers, but they can load the gun.
To dismiss the power of language is to misunderstand the architecture of human behavior. We don’t just act, we narrate, justify, and rehearse our actions through speech. That’s why words matter. That’s why they can wound, and why they must warn.
And if this provokes a response, especially one that insists speech is harmless, it only proves the point. Words move people. That’s why they matter. That’s why they must be used with care.
I’m a professor of Behavioral Economics and Cognitive Neuroscience.
Join me and read more.
Long ago, the Supreme Court ruled that all speech is protected under the Constitution, even the worst "hate speech." Making a distinction between free speech and hate speech is ultimately disingenuous. Disagreement and the freedom of self expression are essential to a functioning democracy.
"Long ago, the Supreme Court... Making a distinction between free speech and hate speech..."
And free speech and....very, very costly speech. Lies that are costing American democracy greatly.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote the following about the limits of free expression under the First Amendment:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".
(Folks out there in the 'marketplace' in great numbers ongoingly screaming FIRE--no facts, no real proof. Hey, just their opinion)
John, just noticed your comment, right after posting mine!
From my reading about hate speech, It is only unlawful if it leads to an unlawful act. Otherwise, you can be as rude and as crude as you want. If nobody takes it as a reason to take some action that it unlawful then it is still just freedom of speech, no matter how tasteless or unkind.
I was going to put up a Twitter post, even though it’s not something I feel is tasteful or would normally say, saying “Charlie Kirk: BANG!” as an example of tasteless but still free speech. But then I would get all the extremist right wing nut jobs attacking me, even if I explained that it is still free speech, but they wouldn’t understand or even read the entire post, and I would get threats personally. I’m not willing to put myself through that bulls*t. They really are provoked by whatever they see they don’t agree with, but that doesn’t mean what I posted was unlawful and I’m still entitled to free speech.
When did we come to this low point of division and hate in this country, that the 1st amendment becomes limited? When the vice president publicly says on Kirk’s podcast to doxx anyone who says something about Kirk, we’re in a dark place.
I know you are correct about the 1st amendment, as well as not posting your example of free speech.
If America manages to wrestle democracy back from the grasp of MAGA insanity, there should be a few changes made, to reflect the cultural changes that have occurred since the Constitution was written.
While imagining a new uncorrupted government that actually serves the masses, why not imagine making a few adjustments. The 2nd amendment could definitely use a little fine tuning.
Brilliant, helpful and most timely. Some people even wear hats proclaiming that they are right about everything. Others strangle discussion at birth by demanding "Prove me wrong".
Karen: I’ve seen many posts from 9/11 “truthers” (ie delusions) in the last couple of days. They ask for proof that the World Trade Centers were NOT a “controlled demolition” (I think that story places Jews holding the detonators?). Despite posts from people who witnessed the attack and those who lost loved ones and all the videos, photographs, etc., they cling to the “no planes” narrative. Think about how self-righteous you must be to still assert that the world is wrong but YOU are correct? I admit that I truly wish I could slap them - but not shoot them.
Charlie Kirk was a polemicist, not a genuine debater, a community college dropout trying to cast himself in the role of MAGA's answer to William Buckley. Many conservatives have been praising him for his courage in debating 'liberals' openly and standing up unashamedly for his controversial and frankly obnoxious views. The truth is rather different. He was a self-professed pupil of Rush Limbaugh, another ghastly recipient of a Trump Presidential Medal of Freedom. He was always surrounded by hundreds of his own followers in the Turning Point USA movement - liten to them cheering his remarks about school shootings just before the fatal shot was fired. Utah's gun laws allow people to carry high-powered rifles on campus. Somehow, I don't think that there were many young people at that rally who were remotely inimical to Kirk's views.
To claim that Kirk was a moderate who rejected violence is ridiculous. He just didn't engage himself in violence or directly urge people to use violence, because he didn't need to - his supporters got the message.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs
There's a video circulating showing his supporters beating up a guy on a bicycle for shouting 'Fuck Charlie Kirk'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzAMyVN6hlA
It's also worth bearing in mind the range of Kirk's influence across the world. He has addressed MAGA-like movements in South Korea and Japan. He has debated at the Cambridge student union.
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/29714
Here in the UK, we now have a Turning Point UK and a UK branch of the Heartland Institute.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/15/farage-and-truss-attend-uk-launch-of-us-climate-denial-group-heartland
I have to say that we have enough of this right-wing shit here already without importing any of yours.
Thank you. Somebody needed to say this. It seems that Kirk's reply to the question he was asked just before he was killed, "How many trans people have carried out mass shootings?" was "Too many." Those are not the words of someone who is interested in a discussion with his opponents.
Thank you. A genuinely thoughtful person would have rejected that question about trans people and mass shootings.
I agree, Karen. He was almost always surrounded by his supporters and when he was in a genuine debate, he would quickly get into trouble arguing his case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3ZmA-yg11s&t=131s
Interesting example of someone who, with extreme confidence, acts like they know everything, has the gift of blather & doesn't listen to their knowledgable superiors. Glad no one in our government has those qualities (sarcasm).
Agreed.
Thank you, Russell! While I don’t believe murder is justified, I have wasted no time”on “thoughts and prayers” about Kirk. The modern “live by the sword die by the sword” just replaces “swords” with guns and social media.
I wonder, Marge, whether his poor wife shares his belief that his death was 'worth it' to protect the freedom to bear arms? She apparently has a doctorate in biblical studies so the concept of martyrdom won't be alien to her. Many on the right are now calling Kirk a martyr for right wing values and I'm guessing that it won't be long before a number of fulsome hagiographies will be hitting the bookshops in time for Christmas
Sigh. I also wonder if Trump might turn his death into a Reichstag moment? I worried about the shooting (by an apparently trans shooter) could also lead up to a Trump mega-reaction.
I know nothing about Kirk’s wife and won’t assume…. But honestly, I don’t pray, so I am not withholding my prayers for any of them. Believing that a god would listen to me and act accordingly is reminiscent of flattering our President to give you whatever you ask. I can’t believe in a Trumpian god.
It's already happening, Marge. People are being fired in the media for any wrong word about the obnoxious Kirk. A secret service agent was fired yesterday for complaining about a racist and misogynistic post by Kirk about a black congresswoman. Hegseth has ordered officials at the 'Department of (Culture) War' to scour social media to find any adverse comments by staff about the saintly Kirk. Trump has warned universities that they should do the same in the case of recalcitrant professors. Kirk actually ran a site to identify professors who opposed his appalling views.
https://www.professorwatchlist.org/
I wouldn't be too worried about offending Mrs Kirk. It's obvious from her 'address to the nation' that she is quite as nutty as her late husband.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/12/erika-kirk-charlie-kirk
Note the ominous warning to 'evildoers', even though it seems that Robinson acted alone.
Professor Snyder
Thank you for your recent post on the distinction between “free speech” and “me speech.” Your reflections offered clarity at a time when public discourse feels increasingly distorted by power and influence.
I’ve found myself growing deeply concerned with how centrist voices often sanitize or downplay the dangers of fascism, especially when it comes cloaked in the language of neutrality or balance. In doing so, they sometimes reinforce the status quo—a fusion of corporate and state interests—that undermines genuine democratic values. Much of the mainstream media, rather than holding power to account, seems increasingly compliant, choosing to serve the dominant narrative rather than challenge it. This trend feels less like journalism and more like appeasement.
I am impatient and angry about the constant barge.
Your point about “me speech” is especially timely. Too often, we see influential figures using the banner of “free speech” to shield themselves from criticism while silencing or marginalizing others. They manipulate the concept to protect their platforms, not to foster open dialogue. As you rightly note, this erodes the very meaning of free speech and creates a culture where dissent is punished, not protected.
At the same time, I find myself struggling with the ethical and emotional complexity of defending free speech when it includes hate speech and how this goes on without unaccountabilty. It’s hard to reconcile the abstract principle with the real harm that certain kinds of speech can cause—especially when it targets vulnerable communities or undermines the institutions that protect social safety net. Balancing the protection of civil liberties with the imperative to prevent harm is not easy. We have watched indoctrination events on college campuses. But as you suggest, the answer lies in nurturing free speakers, not just tolerating all speech indiscriminately.
Your vision of a “free speaker” as someone shaped by care, education, and empathy resonates deeply. We need more public voices who embody humility, who listen as much as they speak, and who recognize that the search for truth is ongoing—not owned by any one ideology or class.
Thank you again for your work. Your writing continues to offer, in writing this it now seems naive, guidance for those of us who still believe that truth and courage matter in public life.
Trump and Musk are two of the most obvious practitioners of “me speech.” They also share a common disregard for truth and anything resembling the common good.
More than troubling, more than dangerous bodes the culture war talk from the far right.
The U.S.’s far right now echoes Putin and all his worst Eastern Orthodox priests. They join in hating a West where non-whites have some mobility, women have freedom, gays may have public life, and where no one need submit to any religious dogma.
I thought it was bad that elite U.S. meritocracy used testing to levy on all its uniform neutered voice. I thought it was bad how testing relied on the conceits of causalities all linear only – when real life in nature, in humans seriously involves the serendipitous, the contradictory, the multi-layered, the chaotic, and the complicated.
But these U.S. far-right cultural warriors aligned with Putin and his priests all loom much more deadly than how our corporate elites want to package all in mere group think and commercialism. They aim, rather, for an atavism of feudal imagination combining police state with conformity, glee at violence, and rule by arbitrary thugs none can question – even as their Charlie Kirk gladly took questions.
Indeed that's a major theme of Timothy Snyder's book The Road to Unfreedom.
Very well said, as usual. On the general subject of precision in speaking, I'd add that Kirk's death was not an "assassination," despite the prevalence of that term in the reporting. He was never a public official, so it was a murder. It's still terrible and should be condemned by all, but "assassination" adds a whole level of emotional intensity that stirs passions, not thoughtfulness.
I agree. When I hear he was "assassinated", it gives him a level importance he didn't deserve. At the end of the day, he's some guy with a big mouth and small mind that got shot.
Thank you, Professor. Certain terms, when overused or callously misused need to be refreshed and returned to its place in critical discourse. This is often the job of the poet, but your essay has performed this essential task. Your work has never been more necessary or appreciated. Again, thank you.
In essence Charlie Kirk was the victim of a school shooting. He was the target, so it is murder. I appreciate the distinction between "free speech" and "me speech" along with the idea of the "free speaker". I never listened to anything coming from the mind and mouth of young Charlie. He had the "gift" of being so brazen he was viewed by the monied interests who supported him as their own tool for their own enrichment purposes. There have always been charlatans preying on a gullible, worried, angry populace. He was one of those. And his talent took him to the top...he became fabulously wealthy. In the German language the word "Gift" means "Poison". That's what this young man peddled, from the age of 18 until his death at age 31. Sadly, the gift poisoned him and others. Outwardly successful by the usual shallow standards. Inside nothing but disdain and hate. I do not believe he began life filled with the revulsion he felt for others. He learned that somewhere from someone, some place, some other humans. Seemingly having little to no empathy for others, it never occurred to him that he too could and would die as all creatures die. I fear for what his children may have already learned in his company. Despite the martyrdom being bestowed on him, he was no martyr. He was a rich white "christian" nationalist who made the free choice to walk the path he chose. IMO he sowed hate, grief, and injustice. That seems to be the MO of " me speech". That's how you can recognize it. You can choose to listen. Or you can walk away and help others to do the same.
Linda: well-said!
Thanks Marge🌈
I believe that in a world (the USA certainly now) where truth is blurred, ethics are lost, and intellect is rare, the marketplace of ideas falters. This means that we are not only losing our political freedom to speak, but also explains our current loss of market freedom (Trumpolino's tariffs being the dark example of that), our scientific freedom (NSA, NIH, CDC are dark examples of that, thanks RFK Jr), our freedom to learn, our freedom to build businesses, etc. are all being eroded by the day to day words and actions of Trumpolino and his pre-enlightened horde. Jumping to damaging conclusions without facts or evidence is just another example of blurred (or non existent ethics). How can we negotiate the "complicated" in a time when the marketplace (trading) of ideas has faltered.
When I put all you have said and all I have read and seen together, the slogan on the red hat explains the driving force behind this takeover. Like so much of what is said by the current administration, they mean the exact opposite. Make America Great Again? This means Make America come to its knees. Destroy America and her troublesome Constitution. Take over America, and not only America, and use her people for their own ends. First, let’s save and protect Ukraine. They are our front line.
Slava Ukraine, Susan!
Simple, bruce: "we negotiate the 'complicated'" when schools guide us in seeing others.
This of course goes totally opposite the prevailing grouping, stereotyping, and labeling which social media algorithms feed.
Also opposite the rationality and linearity conceits by which testing neuters all.
Schools can have teachers instead who relish the skills, the arts, available for seeing, quoting others as individuals in their circumstances, their issues, contexts, communities.
I like this as a general cautionary distinction. But what seems more important in the Charlie Kirk case is the distinction between free speech and hate speech.
Hate speech is me speech; it's just the projected shadow of me.
Not speech-related but an interesting observation from a Ukrainian military chaplain with whom I have been corresponding. This is an excerpt from his reply to a message I sent him yesterday:
“I must confess the funny truth of why I didn’t respond yesterday: here in Kyiv we have been sleeping practically all day and night, catching up on rest in advance. The secret is that Trump's adviser Keith Kellogg is currently in Kyiv for 2 days, and when he is here, we have no attacks at all—no sirens.”
I am sure that this is just a coincidence but then again, I don't have any representative of the Russian Federation on speed dial (for clarity's sake, yes, I am being facetious).
Welcome sanity. Unfortunately will not be listened to by those who need to hear it.
In underreported news, Jake Hieu Quoc Nguyen, 28, a veteran marine, was found shot to death and left by the side of a road in Texas after completing his work shift. Texas averages more than 4K gun deaths per year, which is roughly 10% of the total national tally. Why hasn’t the national guard been sent in to reduce crime? https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/gun-violence-data/state-gun-violence-data/texas Jake was a veteran of the US Marine Corps but was left by the side of the road like a piece of trash. Where is the outrage? Where are the presidential tributes and promises of posthumous medals? Where is the manhunt? Meanwhile, 46,728 US residents had the same COD as Kirk in 2023. No wonder media outlets outside of the US are printing the Kirk headline below the fold.
And sadly we have a current administration filled with me speakers! I cannot think of anything positive from this group of men and women.
Freedom of speech, like freedom of religion, is often taken as “the freedom to inflict mine on you.” Many so called pilgrims who came to this country came NOT for freedom OF religion but for freedom to practice THEIR OWN religion, and if their religion is the only legitimate one, that flies in the face of freedom of religion. This feels a lot like that to me.
The essay was such a timely reminder to be curious instead of cocky. I needed to hear it. Thanks.
JE: The John Roberts SCOTUS has been taking that exact approach (read American Crusade: How the Supreme Court is Weaponizing Religious Freedom by Andrew L Seidel — a frightening book). Tearing down the separation between Church and State is one of the worst horrors yet.
All part of the plan, right? Christian Nationalists tear down as they build up, I guess, bc they have to. There’s no room for both. Sick MFers. Thank you for the title! Trying to finish Strongmen. I find I have to read this stuff slowly but then that prolongs the pain
Great comparison. Dr. Snyder.