Does the reaction to Charlie Kirk’s murder now confirm that when conservatives engage in free speech, it’s labeled as hate speech, but when liberals engage in hate speech, it is excused as free speech?
Take for example Senator Charles Schumer’s direct threats against two Justices of the Supreme Court in 2022. National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) filed a Complaint against Schumer with the Attorney Grievance Committee of the New York Supreme Court that was rejected with this explanation:
While these comments are certainly concerning, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) is cautious about disciplining attorneys, whether local attorneys or public officials, for comments that may be protected by the First Amendment.
Threats are not free speech. They are not protected by the First Amendment. Charlie Kirk never threatened anyone, nor did he ever engage in anything that could be considered “hate speech.” Indeed, even as he expressed his views, it was often in a forum in which he invited those with whom he disagreed to take part.
When the demagogue Schumer issued his vitriol from the Supreme Court steps, his purpose was to intimidate the Court, and in the process incite, and make impossible civil discourse.
Click here for our March 6, 2020 Complaint. Click here for the July 27, 2020 response. Click here for our August 5, 2020 appeal of the dismissal.
The New York Supreme Court exercised no such caution about disciplining attorneys in July 2024 when it disbarred Rudy Giuliani for allegedly making “false and misleading statements” about the 2020 election. Nor did it give any deference at all to the First Amendment, even though Giuliani’s statements were his opinions about fraud in the 2020 election. This was speech most assuredly protected by the First Amendment, whether Giuliani was right or wrong. Guiliani did not threaten anyone.
From Schumer’s September 11 press conference:
Reporter: Leader Schumer, conservatives are pointing to Democratic rhetoric on Trump and the right as inciting this violence. How do you respond to calls for toning down the language?
Schumer: Look, words matter, and we’ve all got to be careful in this heated moment. But let’s be clear: no one condones violence, and no rhetoric justifies taking a life. The real culprit here is the easy access to guns and the toxic echo chambers online that turn disagreement into danger. We need Congress to act on common-sense reforms—universal background checks, red-flag laws—that have bipartisan support. Blaming one side misses the point; we’re all in this boat together, and it’s sinking if we don’t row as one.
Schumer’s assertion that “no one condones violence” is strange in light of his own threats, and the thousands and thousands of social media expressions, many from prominent people and activists, celebrating Kirk’s murder.
Schumer then tries to change the subject to gun control, even though the weapon used to kill Kirk was the of kind hunting rifle that gun control advocates insist they will never seek to ban.
The “real culprit” is Schumer himself, whose words give license to the violent, including Nicholas John Roske, who tried to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Charlie Kirk’s killer.
