LEON: Charlie Kirk’s Racist/Xenophobic Rants Are Not Protected Speech

“I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.” — Charlie Kirk, April 5, 2023

Political flamethrower Charlie Kirk was shot dead Sept. 10, 2025, while speaking at a political event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Authorities have arrested Utah resident Tyler James Robinson, 22. He allegedly confessed to the shooting to a family member.

Kirk’s shooting has triggered a national discussion about the political significance and/or impact that it will have moving forward. There are two basic elements of analysis of this event for me — the human element and the political.

From the human perspective, very simply put, this was first-degree murder. It was the unlawful, intentional killing of one human being by another, with malice aforethought. Murder is wrong. I cannot condone it nor advocate for it in any circumstance. I believe even though it is not always apparent to us, the Creator will set things right. The scales will be balanced, but we must always work diligently and do everything in our power to balance them as well.

From the political perspective, we must be very clear. Charlie Kirk was no martyr. He was an angry, ignorant, intolerant, xenophobic, racist, hate-spewing white supremacist. There are far too many in mainstream media and politics who are doing everything in their power to turn Tyler James Robinson’s horrific act into a referendum or validation of whatever agenda they are trying to promote. Trump has ramped up his attacks on “the radical left.” According to him, “We’re dealing with a radical left group of lunatics, and they don’t play fair, and they never did.” Kirk’s widow Erika has said, “Those evildoers responsible for my husband’s assassination have no idea what they have done. They should all know this …” By all official accounts, Robinson was a lone wolf with no known political affiliation. How does he become part of “the radical left” or Erika Kirk’s contrived group of evildoers?

Others like Utah Gov. Spencer Cox are trying to turn this into a discussion about political speech without examining the content and nature of that speech, and too many on the so-called “left” are allowing them to do this. Cox said, “Political violence is different than any other type of violence … the very act that Charlie championed, of expression … that is enshrined in our founding documents, having his life taken in that way … makes it more difficult for people to believe they can share their ideas.”

In theory, Cox is correct but political speech is not what this should be about. As citizens, we cannot afford to be lulled into this trap equating racist rhetoric and hate with protected political speech. Yes, the First Amendment protects our right to free speech, but not all speech is protected. The phrase “you can’t falsely shout fire in a crowded theater” comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s opinion in the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States. That’s what Trump and Kirk and the others are doing within our crowded political theater.

Remember Trump’s comments about Mexicans? He claimed that they are “bringing their worst people to America, including criminals and rapists. … They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing their problems,” he said. “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards, and they tell us what we are getting.” Following Trump’s racist rants, Kirk said on May 19, 2023, “It’s happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more often.” That’s not political speech, that’s unprotected racist hate speech. Isn’t it ironic that Kirk’s accused assassin, Tyler James Robinson, is not one of those “prowling Blacks” and is from Orem, Utah?

It is also important to remember that fighting words are not protected speech. This concept was established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The legal concept of “fighting words” refers to words that, “by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” prompting the listener to throw a punch. They are considered to have very little social value, and the government can prohibit them to prevent immediate violence and disorder. Charlie Kirk said on May 19, 2023, “MLK was awful. He’s not a good person.” That’s not political speech. Those comments have no social value. Those are fighting words.

Again, in theory, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox is correct, but he fails to put any of Kirk’s “political speech” into any real context. On Jan. 23, 2024, Kirk said, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.” Does Cox agree with this? Does he support this? Will Cox defend this? He makes no mention of the hate-filled, racist nature of Kirk’s diatribes.

As Cox champions the right of free speech, where was he when Mahmoud Khalil, the Algerian-Palestinian student who is known for his leading role in the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian protests, was arrested, sent to ICE detention and nearly deported? What about Turkish doctoral student Rumeysa Öztürk, who was arrested by federal immigration agents and had her visa revoked in connection with her pro-Palestinian activism at Tufts University? Did he stand for their First Amendment rights?

Dr. Ronald Walters wrote in “White Nationalism, Black Interests,” “… given a condition where one race is dominant in all political institutions, most policy actions appear to take on an objective quality, where policy makers argue they are acting on the basis of ‘national interests’ rather than racial ones.” There are way too many on both sides of the aisle who want to protect the right to speak in a political context while ignoring the fact that their racist nature serves no valuable democratic purpose.

Kirk’s widow said he was killed because he spoke for patriotism and faith. Well, there could be some truth relative to the patriotism part if you understand American history, white nationalism, and the racist and xenophobic realities of American history. But the faith part? Not at all. What God does she pray to and follow? Not the one who told us to love our neighbor as ourselves, do unto others, all are created in the image of God, and we must care for the least of us. Those ideals were never championed by Charlie Kirk.

Here are two other Kirk quotes regarding Islam:

“We’ve been warning about the rise of Islam on the show, to great amount of backlash. We don’t care, that’s what we do here. And we said that Islam is not compatible with Western civilization.” — June 24, 2025

“Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.” — Sept. 8, 2025

And he claimed to be a Christian?

Again, isn’t it ironic that Kirk’s accused assassin, Tyler James Robinson, is not one of those “sword-wielding” Muslims and is from Orem, Utah? I guess God does have a sense of humor or at least a sense of irony.

Where were all of the self-proclaimed protectors of political speech and tolerance and whose rights were they protecting when former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo and the Tea Party were screaming, “We want our country back”? Where were they when Tea Party sycophants were spitting at Congressmen Emanuel Cleaver, John Lewis and Barney Frank? Where were their voices when the Tea Party members were calling Cleaver and Lewis n—–s and Frank a f—-t?

See, one of the major problems with these self-anointed defenders of “political speech” is how selective they are in their indignation. That’s called hypocrisy. You’re either all in or you are all wrong. Where are these so-called “Christians” as Fox News host Brian Kilmeade called for executing homeless individuals with mental health issues during a Sept. 10 episode of “Fox & Friends,” suggesting “involuntary lethal injection” as a solution for those who refuse government assistance? Forget the fact that he “apologized.” How can you “walk that back”?

All of this faux-martyrdom for Charlie Kirk reminds me of the scene from “The Godfather Part II,” when Hyram Roth was talking with Mike Corleone about the murder of Roth’s friend, Moe Greene: “When I heard it, I wasn’t angry. I knew Moe, I knew he was headstrong, talking loud, saying stupid things, so when he turned up dead, I let it go. And I said to myself, ‘This is the business we’ve chosen.'” Kirk was talking loud, saying racist things …

I close this as I opened it, quoting Charlie Kirk: “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.” Be careful what you wish for …

When you make your living like the Charlie Kirks of the world, contributing to the ignorant, racist, xenophobic, intolerant white supremacist hate-filled mélange that passes for political dialogue in this country, you run the risk of running up against someone who is just a little more intolerant than you, and bad things can happen. One of the sayings I learned in law school was “res ipsa loquitur” — that’s Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.” Sorry, Charlie.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is a nationally broadcast radio talk-show host.