“The US Government, seeking to punish those who make light of the incident, is a complete betrayal of the First Amendment and spits in the face of the principle of free speech and debate,” said one lawyer.

“So much for free speech.”

That’s how multiple social media users  responded on Thursday after a top official signalled on the platform X that the US Department of State will review foreigners’ remarks on the Wednesday killing of Turning Point USA chief executive and co-founder Charlie Kirk, a key ally of Republican President Donald Trump.

“In light of yesterday’s horrific assassination of a leading political figure, I want to underscore that foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country,” Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau  wrote on Thursday morning.

“I have been disgusted to see some on social media praising, rationalising, or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action,” Landau added. “Please feel free to bring such comments by foreigners to my attention so that the State Department can protect the American people.”

Lawyers swiftly  stressed that the comments Landau is aiming to track down would be “fully protected speech under the First Amendment” to the US Constitution.

American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick  said, “You can agree that it’s a tragedy that a man was assassinated and also believe that the US Government seeking to punish those who make light of the incident is a complete betrayal of the First Amendment and spits in the face of the principle of free speech and debate.

“It is appalling to see US Government officials trying to police the speech of people outside the US and to direct consular officers to deny and strip visas from anyone who made a joke about Charlie Kirk’s assassination – and rely on X for reports,” he continued. “The First Amendment applies to the federal government; ‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech’. Directing people to have a benefit denied and potentially be deported over a joke in very poor taste violates the First Amendment.”

After one X user suggested visitors to the United States don’t have the same rights as citizens, Reichlin-Melnick explained that “the First Amendment is a restriction on government action that applies even when the government seeks to restrict the speech of noncitizens. If you’d like, I can cite you dozens of court cases confirming that noncitizens enjoy First Amendment protections.”

Kirk and his allies — including Trump — have long framed the late 31-year-old as a free speech supporter. A lengthy pop-up message about his death on the Turning Point USA website even says that “Charlie has become America’s greatest martyr to the freedom of speech he so adored.”

In response to Axios’ reporting on Landau’s threat, Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, sarcastically  said: “Yes, this definitely seems like an appropriate and constitutional use of the State Department’s surveillance authorities. And definitely a fitting way to honour a person whom Trump admin officials have labelled a First Amendment hero.”

Writer Miriam Elder similarly  quipped, “The free speech government honouring the free speech martyr.”

Trump also publicly  fancies himself a protector of free speech, but since returning to office in January, he has targeted  law firms that represent clients and causes he opposes,  news outlets whose coverage he disagrees with, and  foreign students who criticise Israel’s US-backed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Although elected officials across the US political spectrum have  condemned Kirk’s killing and his unidentified shooter remains at large, Trump  claimed in a Wednesday night speech that the rhetoric of the “radical left” is “directly responsible” for his death.

The president also pledged that his administration “will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organisations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country".

While Kirk’s fatal shooting has sparked widespread condemnation of all political violence, the far-right crusader’s longtime critics  have also  highlighted his attacks on marginalised people, promotion of misinformation and conspiracy theories, and strong opposition to stricter gun laws – including his assertion that “it’s worth to have a cost of unfortunately some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment".

Landau wasn’t the only key official making threats about commentary on Kirk’s killing. Congressman Clay Higgins (R-La.)  said on X early on Thursday that “I’m going to use congressional authority and every influence with Big Tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk".

“If they ran their mouth with their smartass hatred celebrating the heinous murder of that beautiful young man who dedicated his whole life to delivering respectful conservative truth into the hearts of liberal enclave universities, armed only with a Bible and a microphone and a Constitution… those profiles must come down,” he said. “So, I’m going to lean forward in this fight, demanding that Big Tech have zero tolerance for violent political hate content, the user to be banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER.

“I’m also going after their business licences and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their driver’s licences should be revoked,” he added. “I’m basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination. I’m starting that today. That is all.”

Several X users  responded with examples of Higgins’ long history of problematic commentary.

Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression chief executive Greg Lukianoff told Higgins: “No. The state may not coerce private institutions to censor speech that the state itself cannot censor under the First Amendment. Besides, you are not safer for knowing LESS about what people really think.”

Republished from Common Dreams, 11 September 2025

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.