Hate Speech, Free Speech

Hate Speech vs Free Speech

When Charlie Kirk was assassinated on September 10, 2025, my heart sank. My son looked up to him. Thousands of young men across the country looked up to him. And while many grieved, prayed, and honored Charlie’s life, there was another reaction—loud voices in media, politics, Hollywood, and across social platforms shamelessly excused or even celebrated his death.

Why? Because they slapped the label of “hate speech” on his worldview.

Let’s be clear: there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has said it again and again—offensive, even outrageous speech is protected unless it crosses very narrow lines like direct threats or incitement to immediate violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, Snyder v. Phelps). In everyday language: “hate speech” isn’t a legal category—it’s usually just speech that offends you or that you don’t agree with.

Why Charlie’s words were called “hate”

Here’s the real reason Charlie’s words were branded as “hate speech”: his worldview was shaped by a book called the Bible. And ultimately, they weren’t Charlie’s words at all—they were God’s. Scripture itself foretells this reality: God’s truth divides. Jesus said His words would cut like a sword, separating light from darkness and exposing hearts (Matthew 10:34–36; Hebrews 4:12).

What critics really want to silence isn’t Charlie—it’s God. But since they cannot silence Him, they attack His children. Ironically, every time they do, they only magnify His voice. The truth claims of the Bible are what they find intolerable, because those words confront everything our culture celebrates:

• The Bible calls homosexuality and every distortion of sexuality sin, while affirming God’s design of one man and one woman leaving father and mother and becoming one flesh. (Genesis 2:24, Leviticus 18:22; 20:13, Matthew 19:4-6, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ephesians 5:31)

• The Bible rejects feminism that seeks to erase distinctions between men and women, even as it protects women, guards children, and lifts men to lead in love and sacrifice. (Exodus 22:22, Proverbs 31:8-9, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:22-25 

• The Bible condemns the murder of babies in the womb, forbids idols, confronts greed and pride, and commands us to serve God and others. (Exodus 20:3-5, Psalm 139:13-16, Proverbs 16:18, Matthew 22:37-39, Luke 12:15, Philippians 2:3-4, 1 Timothy 6:10, 1 John 5:21

• The Bible calls out the religious hypocrite just as sharply as it calls out the pagan rebel. It exposes the prideful, lays all humanity at the foot of the cross, and then bursts forth with resurrection hope in an empty tomb. (Matthew 23:27-28, Romans 1:18-23, Romans 3:23, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

That is why they cry “hate speech.” Not because it is hateful—but because it is holy. The Bible speaks against sin. It demands repentance. It promises new life, but only through dying to self. It insists we share this truth with others, even with those who hate us. And yes, it even tells us to pray for the very man who murdered Charlie Kirk.

This is the worldview Charlie held to the end. A worldview of truth, love, grace, and mercy—but also judgment, because God is fierce in casting out sin and evil.

The rush to blame—or to gloat

The reaction in the days that followed exposed how broken our cultural moment really is:

• Media voices wasted no time writing headlines and opinion pieces that painted Charlie as someone who “deserved no mourning.” They didn’t wrestle with his arguments or beliefs—they just erased him with a slur.

• Hollywood figures chimed in. Actress Amanda Seyfried labeled Charlie “hateful” while offering the caveat that his murder was “disturbing.” It’s a familiar formula: condemn the violence, but keep the dehumanizing label intact.

• Late-night commentary followed suit. Jimmy Kimmel’s on-air remarks about Charlie were so inflammatory that ABC suspended his show amid backlash. The pattern was predictable—mock first, check the facts later. And Hollywood lost its collective mind more over Kimmel's firing and less over Charlie Kirk's assassination. Kimmel's firing is not an attack on free speech.

• Government officials even stepped into unconstitutional territory. Attorney General Pam Bondi pledged the administration would “absolutely target” hate speech—something any high school civics student should know is impossible under the First Amendment. Though she clarified her statement later on X she still used the label hate speech which gives progressives and liberals cannon fodder to pronounce, ironically, that freedom of speech is under attack.

At the same time, foreign trolls and domestic opportunists flooded the internet with lies and distortions, hoping to weaponize Charlie’s death for their own ends. The truth mattered less than the narrative.

What Charlie actually believed

Here’s the part that exposes the whole charade. Charlie’s worldview was not built on hate—it was built on historic, orthodox Christianity. He said it often and without apology:

• “I believe in the Bible, and I believe that Christ rose from the dead on the third day. This is the foundation of my faith and guides my actions.”

• “Jesus Christ was God in human flesh… if we accept Him as our Lord and Savior then we can have eternal life.”

• And in his final 24 hours, he stood on stage and reaffirmed his faith in Christ and the truth of Scripture.

Agree or disagree with his politics, those are not the words of a man of hate. Those are the words of a Christian disciple.

Why the “hate speech” label fails

It’s lazy. Calling something “hate speech” avoids the hard work of actually engaging the argument. It’s name-calling, not reasoning. It confuses offense with harm. Offense is subjective. Harm is objective. Our Constitution protects offense because once you outlaw it, you outlaw debate. It boomerangs. Today it’s conservatives. Tomorrow it’s Christians. Once “hate” becomes whatever the ruling class says it is, no one is safe.

And beyond the civic danger, Christians should see the spiritual danger. The enemy loves nothing more than silencing truth by slapping it with a toxic label.

A Christian defense of Charlie’s worldview

Charlie wasn’t perfect. None of us are. But the heart of his message was simple and biblical: humans are sinners in need of grace; truth exists and is knowable; Christ is Lord; and freedom is worth defending. You may not like his methods. You may debate his conclusions, but that is a far cry from hate.

The real danger in all this isn’t one man’s rhetoric—it’s a society that celebrates murder while pretending it was “justice” against hateful ideas. If that’s where we’ve arrived, we’ve lost something deeper than politics—we’ve lost our grip on truth and our shared humanity.

So where do we go from here? We commit to doing what Charlie himself did: speak truth without apology, defend free speech even for those we oppose, and refuse to let labels replace arguments. The First Amendment isn’t just a legal shield—it’s the framework that lets us have these conversations in the first place.

And as Christians, we go even further. We love our enemies. We pray for those who persecute us. We cling to the gospel that Charlie clung to in his final hours: Christ crucified, risen, and coming again. That’s not hate. That’s hope.