Up Next
Charlie Kirk Responds to Texas State University Student Government Vote to Ban Turning Point USA from Campus
4:07
Charlie Kirk Debates Self-Described Liberal on Free Speech, Parental Rights, and Where Both Sides Fail
7:30
Charlie Kirk Responds to Journalism Professor Who Physically Removed Conservative Student Group Signs from Campus
1:43
Related Books
Browse Conservative Books
Charlie Kirk Defends Free Speech Absolutism: Why Even Hate Speech Should Be Protected in America
Charlie Kirk makes a case for unrestricted free speech, arguing that even the most reprehensible ideas should be protected under the First Amendment. Drawing on examples from the ACLU's defense of Nazi marchers in Skokie to the Westboro Baptist Church, Kirk contends that censorship only empowers extremists by allowing them to claim victimhood. He believes a true marketplace of ideas, where bad speech is countered with better speech rather than silenced by government, creates a more engaged citizenry. Kirk distinguishes between protected speech and actionable slander, noting that knowingly publishing false information should face legal consequences. His perspective challenges contemporary debates about hate speech laws and content moderation.
The Foundation of Free Speech Absolutism
Charlie Kirk holds an uncompromising position on free speech: even hate speech should be completely and totally allowed in America. He argues that the most disgusting speech should absolutely be protected, a viewpoint he notes is no longer held by the political left or even by organizations that once championed it.
Kirk references the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as a historical example of principled free speech defense. The organization once sued to allow legitimate Nazis to march through downtown Skokie in the 1980s and 90s. The ACLU's reasoning, according to Kirk, was that as soon as you use the word "hate," it becomes a subjective term open to interpretation by whoever holds power.
The Marketplace of Ideas
Kirk's fundamental belief is simple: the more speech, the better. He uses the Westboro Baptist Church as a case study. While acknowledging that their message is disgusting and reprehensible, Kirk opposes making their speech illegal. Instead, he points to the organic response their appearances generate—multiple people show up peacefully to demonstrate how foolish the Westboro Baptist Church's message is.
In Kirk's view, a civil society allows the best ideas to win in the marketplace of ideas. This requires an open forum where all perspectives can be examined and debated.
The Unintended Consequences of Censorship
Kirk identifies what he considers the real issue with hate speech laws: shutting down such speech only makes those people more powerful. This represents the unintended consequence of censorship—giving more credence to the silenced person the moment you shut them up.
When someone is censored, Kirk argues, they can play the victim card. They claim authorities are trying to silence them because they have something everyone else wants and pose a threat to the establishment. Kirk's response: "No, you're not. You're just a fool and those people have too much power."
He points to Europe, particularly Germany, as evidence for his argument. In Germany, where swastikas and Nazi paraphernalia are not allowed, the white nationalist movement is actually gaining traction with a rebellious underbelly. Kirk suggests that prohibition creates allure rather than eliminating dangerous ideologies.
Public Examination Over Prohibition
Kirk's prescription is direct: bring your bad ideas publicly so decent people can cross-examine you, see who you are, and convince the public otherwise. He acknowledges this is a hard argument for some young people to hear, as they object that hateful speech deteriorates the country.
But Kirk counters that it's not the speech itself that deteriorates society—it's when those ideas spread unchallenged. Good people will speak in opposition when bad ideas are aired publicly, he argues, making him a self-described free speech absolutist through and through.
Speech as the Foundation of Citizenship
Drawing on classical philosophy, Kirk explains that the utility of speech is what makes human beings different from any other type of being on the planet. He references Aristotle, who said humans are the speaking beings, noting that our capacity to communicate defines who we are.
Kirk believes free speech creates an act of citizenry. When bad people are allowed to speak and really bad people are given permits, the entire population responds with disgust and mobilizes—making yard signs and speaking out against them. Citizens remain on their toes, looking out for threats to their values.
Conversely, when the government becomes the speech police and starts calling the shots, citizens become complacent. They think the government will get rid of the bad guys for them, becoming less active and less responsible for the country around them.
Where Kirk Does Draw the Line: Slander and Libel
While Kirk refuses to draw a line on speech content, he does distinguish between opinion and slander. When someone makes the intentional publication of false information through a news outlet—knowingly false information—Kirk believes they should be able to be sued in court more generously under libel laws.
The difference, as Kirk sees it, is clear: if you know you have materially false information and you publish it to a wide readership, that is not freedom of speech. That is slander, and it's clearly defined by Supreme Court precedent. Protected speech covers opinions, no matter how offensive, but knowingly publishing false facts crosses into actionable territory.
Video Transcript
[00:00] i was wondering if you could talk about
[00:01] where you draw the line with
[00:03] um free speech hate speech and slander
[00:06] it's a terrific question
[00:09] my position um is that even hate speech
[00:12] should be completely and totally allowed
[00:14] in our country
[00:14] the most disgusting speech should
[00:16] absolutely be protected
[00:18] and it's not a viewpoint that is held by
[00:20] the left the aclu used to hold this
[00:22] viewpoint
[00:23] the american civil liberties union they
[00:25] used they sued
[00:26] so that legitimate nazis could march
[00:28] through downtown skokie you remember
[00:30] this
[00:30] back in the 1980s and 90s now why would
[00:33] the aclu do this
[00:35] because they said as soon as you use the
[00:37] word hate
[00:38] that is a very subjective term because
[00:41] then all of a sudden it is in the eyes
[00:44] or
[00:44] the it is in the
[00:47] implementation of whomever has the power
[00:50] so here's my belief
[00:51] the more speech the better let's use the
[00:53] westboro baptist church for example
[00:56] so there's a movement that says it
[00:57] should be illegal to say what they're
[01:00] saying
[01:00] i think what they say is disgusting i
[01:02] think what they say is reprehensible
[01:04] but i've also seen every time they show
[01:06] up
[01:08] a multiple of people show up peacefully
[01:10] to show how how foolish they are
[01:13] i think that in a civil society the best
[01:16] ideas will win as long as you have that
[01:17] marketplace
[01:18] and here's the real issue as soon as you
[01:21] shut up hate speech
[01:22] those people only get more powerful and
[01:24] this is the unintended consequence of
[01:26] censorship
[01:27] you give more credence to the silenced
[01:30] person
[01:30] the moment you shut them up because then
[01:32] they can play the victim and they say
[01:33] they're trying to shut me up because i
[01:35] have something that everyone else wants
[01:37] and i'm a threat to them no you're not
[01:38] you're just a fool and those people have
[01:40] too much power
[01:41] and so the minute that you start to
[01:43] enforce speech laws like they do in
[01:45] europe
[01:46] based on specific political opinions
[01:48] regardless of how reprehensible they are
[01:50] then you actually give credence them
[01:52] this is why in germany where they do not
[01:54] allow
[01:55] swastikas they do not allow nazi
[01:57] paraphernalia
[01:58] their white nationalist awful movement
[02:00] is actually gaining traction
[02:02] because it has like a rebellious
[02:04] underbelly no no let me be very clear
[02:06] bring your bad ideas publicly so decent
[02:09] people can cross-examine you
[02:11] so we can see who you are we can talk to
[02:13] you and convince the public otherwise
[02:16] this is a hard argument for some young
[02:17] people to hear because they're like it's
[02:19] so hateful it's so awful it deteriorates
[02:21] our country
[02:22] no no no those ideas if they spread
[02:25] deteriorate our country
[02:26] but good people will speak in opposition
[02:28] to them and that's why i'm a big
[02:30] believer i'm a free speech absolutist
[02:32] through and through if you and and i i
[02:35] think that
[02:36] the utility of speech is what
[02:39] makes human beings different than any
[02:41] other type of being on the planet
[02:43] aristotle said we are the speaking
[02:45] beings
[02:45] that our capacity to communicate is who
[02:48] we are
[02:49] and i actually think it creates an act
[02:51] of citizenry
[02:52] when bad people are allowed to speak
[02:55] when really bad people are given a
[02:56] permit
[02:57] all of a sudden the entire population's
[02:59] like that's disgusting
[03:01] let's go get our yard signs go make them
[03:03] and we're going to go speak out against
[03:04] them
[03:05] they're kind of on their toes they're
[03:06] looking out for things all of a sudden
[03:08] if the
[03:08] if the government becomes the speech
[03:10] police and they start calling the shots
[03:12] like all the government will get rid of
[03:13] the bad guys for me and they kind of
[03:15] become complacent
[03:16] they become less active they become less
[03:18] responsible for the country around them
[03:20] and so i don't draw a line that's me i
[03:23] say that
[03:23] you should allow all opinions to be
[03:25] heard now with slander if you make the
[03:27] intentional
[03:28] publication when you're behind a news
[03:30] outlet
[03:31] with false information knowingly false
[03:33] information i think that you should be
[03:35] able to be sued in court
[03:36] more generously with the libel laws that
[03:38] we have in this country
[03:40] and so the difference is that if you
[03:41] know you have materially false
[03:43] information
[03:44] and you publish it to a big wide
[03:45] readership that is not freedom of speech
[03:47] that is slandered it's very clear what
[03:49] the supreme court has said with that
[03:50] and so i hope that help helps answer
[03:52] your question so thank you
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.