A New York Post editorial on Tuesday urged political leaders and institutions not to use the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk as a pretext to curtail constitutional protections for speech, as Attorney General Pam Bondi sought to walk back earlier comments that appeared to endorse a "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.
The Post Editorial Board argued that government censorship is categorically different from private consequences applied by employers, universities and platforms when they discipline or dismiss individuals for objectionable speech. The editorial cited examples it said were appropriate responses, including media companies and schools taking action against those who celebrated or justified the killing.
Bondi, the attorney general, was quoted in the editorial as having initially embraced a broader view of impermissible speech during a podcast appearance in which she suggested there was a distinction between "free speech" and "hate speech" and said the Justice Department would "absolutely target" those who use "hate speech." According to the editorial, Bondi later sought to clarify that her reference was intended to mean that speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment, adding that free speech "does NOT and will NEVER protect violence."
The Post referenced a May 2024 post by Kirk in which he wrote, "Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment." The editorial framed that position as consistent with a long-standing American legal tradition dating back to the founding era that rejects a government-imposed "hate speech" exception.
The editorial also noted a wave of private-sector and institutional responses in the aftermath of the assassination, saying such consequences differ from government censorship. It pointed to cases cited in its commentary in which individuals lost jobs or faced other penalties after publicly praising the killing, including a New Jersey doctor who resigned after allegations he said Kirk "deserved to be shot," and the editorial praised media employers that removed or disciplined commentators whose remarks were seen as condoning violence. The Post singled out MSNBC's decision to part ways with commentator Matthew Dowd as a defensible action in that context.
The editorial drew on a YouGov poll it said showed a portion of the public had been misinformed about the killer's political affiliation, using that example to argue that private actors have a role in policing misinformation and in applying consequences for speech that incites or celebrates violence. The piece emphasized that distinguishing between government action to suppress speech and private-sector discipline is central to protecting First Amendment freedoms.
Legal scholars and advocates note that U.S. constitutional law has long afforded robust protection to controversial and offensive expression, while carving out narrow categories of unprotected speech such as true threats, incitement to imminent lawless action and certain forms of defamation. The debate over where to draw those lines has intensified amid the political polarization surrounding the assassination and the public reaction to it.
The Post editorial urged restraint from political leaders and government officials, warning that formal legal restrictions on speech could replicate the kinds of censorship the editorial board said Kirk and other conservatives have long decried. It argued that private remedies—employment actions, platform moderation and public rebuttal—are the appropriate mechanisms for addressing speech that many find reprehensible, while preserving the constitutional protections that have governed public debate for more than two centuries.