I don’t condone violence, and I don’t think tragedy should be treated flippantly. What I keep coming back to is the tension between free expression, platform standards, and consistency. Consider the specifics:
What Charlie Kirk said (with context)
- On LGBTQ people: while responding to a Bible-verse debate, he pointed to Leviticus and said the preceding chapter “affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters,” immediately after noting the verse prescribing stoning for men who have sex with men. FactCheck.org verified the wording and context (they also note he was not literally calling for stoning). FactCheck.org
- On gender-affirming care: “We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor.” (April 1, 2024, with video). Media Matters for America
- Side note on this, the Nuremberg-style trials were a series of court proceedings after World War II where the leaders of Nazi Germany were put on trial by the Allied powers for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace.
- On Black Americans: “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.” (Jan. 23, 2024). The Guardian compiled the quote; a separate fact-check confirms it. The Guardian
- Also on race/DEI: “If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?” (Jan. 3, 2024, with clip and transcript). Media Matters for America
- On Juneteenth, he called it a “neo-segregationist federal holiday” and “pagan garbage,” and said Turning Point USA (founded by Kirk) made it a mandatory work day (June 16, 2023, with audio). Media Matters for America
- For balance, some viral claims about him have been corrected posthumously; FactCheck.org catalogues which quotes are accurate and which were misrepresented. FactCheck.org
What Jimmy Kimmel said (and what happened next)
- In his monologue, Kimmel criticized “the MAGA gang” for “trying to… score political points” from Kirk’s killing, and—speaking about Trump’s reaction—added: “This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.” Al Jazeera
- After backlash and affiliate pressure, ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live! “indefinitely,” a move widely covered and described by peers as censorship; multiple outlets documented the role of affiliates and public officials in the decision. The Guardian
Why people see double standards
Kirk’s remarks—sweeping, derogatory generalizations about protected groups; threats of “Nuremberg-style” prosecutions; and religious framing that many LGBTQ people experience as dehumanizing—were repeatedly platformed and applauded in partisan media and politics. Kimmel’s monologue, by contrast, used caustic satire to critique political actors’ reactions to the killing and was taken off air. Private networks aren’t the government, but when enforcement feels ad-hoc or partisan, it erodes trust in the “rules of the road” for speech. The principle I’m advocating is content-neutrality: condemn threats and dehumanization wherever they occur, apply standards consistently, distinguish critique from cruelty, and protect space for debate while holding people accountable for direct harms. That’s how we protect people and preserve a credible marketplace of ideas.
Let me reiterate lest someone take anything I have said out of context… I reject both violence and flippancy about loss. What troubles me is the uneven way speech is policed. Charlie Kirk’s dehumanizing rhetoric was widely platformed; Jimmy Kimmel’s show was pulled for remarks in the same news cycle. Private networks aren’t the government, but when enforcement feels partisan or ad-hoc, it erodes trust. We need content-neutral standards: condemn threats and dehumanization wherever they occur, apply rules consistently, and keep space for robust debate without rewarding cruelty or weaponizing “cancellation.” That’s how we protect people and preserve a credible marketplace of ideas.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Update: Saturday, September 20, 2025, from my Facebook feed:
@highlight @followers (tagging for visibility)
In under 24 hours, I have received a wave of emails, comments, and texts about this post. Thank you for engaging thoughtfully even when we disagree. I curate my feeds carefully. If you are seeing this and we are connected, it is because I value you. People in opposition can still get along. The only time that breaks for me is when my rights, or the rights of people I love, are on the line. I welcome further discussion with anyone who wishes to chat, as long as we continue to remain civil. If things take an ugly turn, please know that I will not be responding to anyone who threatens me or attacks me. I have already had enough of that this week.
You are right that networks can pull a show or fire a host, and that is not a First Amendment violation. My concern is who is doing the silencing. When public officials lean on regulators to punish speech, that crosses a constitutional line. Multiple outlets reported that the FCC chair floated action against ABC and affiliates after Kimmel’s monologue because of comments from President Trump, and even some conservatives called that dangerous. That is the kind of government pressure courts have long warned against. Source for reporting: https://www.reuters.com/…/trumps-fcc-chair-carr-uses…/
To be clear: I did not, and do not, equate outcomes for Kirk and Kimmel. What happened to Charlie Kirk was violent and wrong. Full stop. My focus is consistency and the principle against government coercion of private speakers. Supreme Court precedents reaffirm that officials cannot threaten regulated entities to suppress disfavored views. Even when cases are dismissed on standing, the Court repeats the same line: no coercion and no significant encouragement by the state to silence lawful speech.
Where I draw a moral line is rhetoric that dehumanizes groups. Critique and satire about public figures are part of democratic life. Broad attacks that make LGBTQ people or Black Americans feel categorically unsafe are morally corrosive, even when lawful. Data shows LGBTQ youth face significantly higher suicide risk, and hostile climates make that worse. That is why I will not platform Turning Point USA content. It runs counter to my values around dignity and safety. I refer to FactCheck.org and Allsides.com for a lot of my research because I appreciate that both sources offer multiple perspectives and provide edits and corrections. When I write about things people have said, I always try to link to the complete context so readers can listen or read the full account of a conversation.
My bottom line: Private outlets can enforce their standards. That is not censorship. State-driven threats to punish speech are censorship. We should all oppose that, regardless of whether today’s target is someone we like. That is how we protect people and the public square. Again, I’m coming at this as someone who is a writer and who values having the opportunity to share my views.
If you read this far, thank you, and thank you for keeping the conversation civil.
