Calls for repercussions and firings of those who celebrated or mocked the killing of Charlie Kirk have occurred across the country over the past week.
Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-3rd Congressional, would like to prevent federal funding from going to entities that employ individuals who did exactly that. But a First Amendment free speech group believes the proposal is a clear violation of the First Amendment, much like a threat from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to send law enforcement after individuals who participate in hate speech related to Kirk.
Van Orden has proposed a bill that would prohibit federal funding for “entities that employ individuals who condone and celebrate political violence and domestic terrorism, and for other purposes.”
“Political violence and politically violent rhetoric have no place in the United States,” Van Orden said in a statement. “Those celebrating or condoning the death of American citizens will not receive federal dollars, period. The time of funding hate is over. These radical individuals will be held accountable.”
The Center Square was unable to get further comment on the bill from Van Orden, but he has posted about the topic several times on X.com, saying that he would “remove all federal funding, including grants and community directed projects for the entire city of Ellsworth unless this is rectified immediately” for the community based after comments from a teacher reportedly from Ellsworth Community School District.
“The government can choose which programs to fund if there is some sort of program for supporting domestic terrorism or condoning violence or prevent funding for that,” said Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression Legislative and Policy Director Carolyn Iodice. “But they cannot, under the First Amendment, say that you only get federal funds if you agree to not partake in this kind of speech that is protected by the First Amendment. And this language goes even farther than that and says any entity that merely employs someone who engages in this kind of speech.”
Iodice pointed out that the legislation being proposed left a lot up to law enforcement or the president to interpret what qualifies as condoning or celebrating political violence and that that definition could swing based upon who is in office at the time.
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that media outlets who were “unfair” to him “maybe” should be prosecuted for hate speech.
“It kind of illustrates why hate speech is such an amorphous category,” Iodice said. “It would be nuts if the federal government or any government could ban or otherwise regulate hate speech, because it is in the eye of the beholder. The president regards hate speech as speech that was critical of him or whatever he said in that clip.
“Other people think that saying ‘marriage is between one man and one woman’ is hate speech. Some people think that some of the things Charlie Kirk said are hate speech.”
