Is published vulgar remarks directed at Charlie Kirk’s family post assassination protected freedom of speech? Yes, but…

Here is a video arguing against the case with which we mostly disagree until just before around 4 minutes. First, the video of Matt Walsh

So to be clear, yes, everything all these people say is protected speech under the 1st amendment in the US and should be protected speech everywhere.

But protected speech means something very specific. It means that the government does not have the power to apply the instruments of state against people who say such things. Nor should they. I would in fact fight for their rights to say these horrible horrible things if they were being arrested and jailed just for saying them, and not because they are suspected of planning or supporting in a material way, other similar attacks.

I would not ever want to be in the same room with them. But I would fight for their right to show the world how ugly they are inside.

Having made that clear:

In the entertainment industry, it is very common to have what is known as a “Flagrante Delicto” clause in a contract. This means that should say, a recording artist be caught in the public spotlight having done or said something that puts their contractual partners, say a record label or what have you, into disrepute, they have the right to terminate your contract instantly.

If a private company feels that statements publicly made by an employee can cause major loss of revenue, or otherwise bring that company under threat in some way, firing an employee is not a violation of 1st amendment rights. They are not being arrested. They are not facing jail. This is what totalitarian nations like Great Britain do to people who publish comments in contradiction to state narratives. Those kinds of arrests are violations of 1st amendment rights, if indeed Great Britain had any such legal protections left.

One might argue that firing someone for an opinion would be a small step farther than what our own family and friends who have disassociated themselves from those of us that rejected the mRNA Covid injections, and the tens of thousands of people who were fired for rejecting the mRNA vaxx narrative. Many just for stating they opposed it. Those ARE real violations of 1st amendment rights. Or, from the other side, those of you that abandoned friends and relatives because they were ‘anti-science’ or whatever reasoning you had, you are perfectly within your rights to do so. Who was right and wrong becomes a personal matter between all of us and the embalmers.

Having said all that:

We are clearly at the cusp of being at war. In fact even that description is so understated it’s risible. We are at war.

The sides are clearer than it might appear. Islam and leftists together against all members and supporters of classical civilization who hold individual rights, property ownership and independent thought.

When you are at war, the rules change. People have to collectivize for a while.

When I was learning to drive as a teen, one of my brothers taught me this rhyme which was in fact the critical distinction between defacto and de jure in terms of consequence.

“Here lies the body of William Grey, who died defending his right of way”.

You can be as right as you want but it means nothing if you get killed in the process.

When in a state of war, freedom of speech is usually replaced by slogans such as “loose lips sink ships”.

The current war for the most part is taking place on the information battle space. It is what is called, Political Warfare. A brilliant video on the subject was posted here several days ago, but here is the link again.

So the slogans may be different.

But let’s keep in mind, that counter-revolutionary speech, as Matt Walsh more or less points out, such as a man who says he is a woman is still not a woman in any real way whatsoever, is guilty of an actual crime in countries like Canada and the UK, That “Hate speech” laws are created to enforce narratives at the expense of reality. Matt argues that pointing out the real should be protected while insulting the family of Charlie Kirk is not. We disagree. The state has no business deciding truth for people other than in a court with very clear rules on the procedure for that. And the US is not Canada thank God. Canada, Great Britain, Germany and other former republics have degraded into democracies, and now criminalize speech which interferes with the revolutionary and destructive actions of the Potemkin governments overseeing the revolution.

At some point, it behooves us to examine how we define ourselves, and not what dialectical engineers and Marxists like Trudeau and Carney yell from the podium about “what Canadian Values” are. And once we have looked inside and come to understand who we are, we may find ourselves having to fortify our own beliefs.

And this may mean a period where people who celebrate the murder of a Socratic debater who wished to restore liberty and dignity to all, might find themselves without that right for a while.

Personally however, I would never remove that right from the enemy. It is far better to know who these people are then let them plot in the shadows. When people reveal themselves as tyrants, it makes deciding who to deal with much easier for the rest of us, And it also offers them a chance at redemption as they face opposition.

Source: https://vladtepesblog.com/2025/09/17/is-published-vulgar-remarks-directed-at-charlie-kirks-family-post-assassination-protected-freedom-of-speech-yes-but/