Texas Governor Greg Abbott speaks to members of the news media, after attending an event where U.S. President Donald Trump signed signed executive order banning transgender girls and women from participating in women's sports, at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 5, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis
By Eleanort Klibanoff
The Texas Tribune
Last week, as Texas State students gathered to mourn the assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk, another student began taunting them.
“Hi, my name is Charlie Kirk,” he announced, before collapsing to the ground, pretending to be shot. As he walked away, someone on video can be heard saying, “You’re going to get expelled, dude.”
Gov. Greg Abbott agreed, telling the university on social media to “expel this student immediately. Mocking assassination must have consequences.” Texas State President Kelly Damphouse later confirmed that the student was no longer enrolled, explaining in a statement that the university “will not tolerate behavior that mocks, trivializes, or promotes violence.”
Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment expert at UCLA and Stanford, read those statements skeptically.
“Mocking assassination is protected by the First Amendment,” he said. “Speech that mocks, trivializes or promotes violence is protected by the First Amendment, generally speaking.”
Even as Texas’ Republican leaders have vowed to continue Kirk’s fight for free speech on college campuses, many have also demanded consequences for people who have reacted to his death by expressing sentiments they disagree with. Their actions may run afoul of the First Amendment, although the specific facts would have to be litigated in court, legal experts say.
This comes amid a broader sea change in Texas Republicans’ approach to free speech and academic freedom. This year, lawmakers walked back some free speech protections enshrined in state law in 2019; gave governor-appointed university regents greater oversight of curriculum; and recently helped oust a professor for what she taught in the classroom.
This pendulum swing, especially apparent in the response to Kirk’s death, reflects a larger hypocrisy in free speech enforcement, said Adam Steinbaugh, senior attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
“Free speech is as American as apple pie. Everyone says that they love it, but it gets a lot harder for people when it is speech that they find offensive,” Steinbaugh said. “At that point, they start looking for the exits, for any way that they can stretch one of the exceptions of the First Amendment to reach the speech that they don't like.”
The pendulum swing
In 2017, after a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent, a Texas man put out a press release: “TODAY CHARLOTTESVILLE TOMORROW TEXAS A&M.” Alt-right speaker Richard Spencer signed on to speak at the rally in College Station, before the university cancelled it, citing safety concerns.
This decision came at a time when universities, in Texas and nationally, were facing significant blowback for restricting or cancelling appearances by conservative speakers, fueling a narrative that right-leaning voices were being unfairly silenced.
This outrage made its way to the Texas Legislature, which in 2019 passed a bill requiring that all outdoor spaces on university campuses be designated as open forums for public speech, and prohibiting universities from considering anticipated controversy when deciding whether to allow a speaker on campus.
“Our college students, our future leaders, they should be exposed to all ideas, I don’t care how liberal they are or how conservative they are,” state Sen. Joan Huffman, the Houston Republican who authored the bill, said at a hearing. “Sometimes we feel offended by what someone else says, and that’s just too bad in my book.”
Last week, as Texas State students gathered to mourn the assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk, another student began taunting them.
“Hi, my name is Charlie Kirk,” he announced, before collapsing to the ground, pretending to be shot. As he walked away, someone on video can be heard saying, “You’re going to get expelled, dude.”
Gov. Greg Abbott agreed, telling the university on social media to “expel this student immediately. Mocking assassination must have consequences.” Texas State President Kelly Damphouse later confirmed that the student was no longer enrolled, explaining in a statement that the university “will not tolerate behavior that mocks, trivializes, or promotes violence.”
Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment expert at UCLA and Stanford, read those statements skeptically.
“Mocking assassination is protected by the First Amendment,” he said. “Speech that mocks, trivializes or promotes violence is protected by the First Amendment, generally speaking.”
Even as Texas’ Republican leaders have vowed to continue Kirk’s fight for free speech on college campuses, many have also demanded consequences for people who have reacted to his death by expressing sentiments they disagree with. Their actions may run afoul of the First Amendment, although the specific facts would have to be litigated in court, legal experts say.
This comes amid a broader sea change in Texas Republicans’ approach to free speech and academic freedom. This year, lawmakers walked back some free speech protections enshrined in state law in 2019; gave governor-appointed university regents greater oversight of curriculum; and recently helped oust a professor for what she taught in the classroom.
This pendulum swing, especially apparent in the response to Kirk’s death, reflects a larger hypocrisy in free speech enforcement, said Adam Steinbaugh, senior attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
“Free speech is as American as apple pie. Everyone says that they love it, but it gets a lot harder for people when it is speech that they find offensive,” Steinbaugh said. “At that point, they start looking for the exits, for any way that they can stretch one of the exceptions of the First Amendment to reach the speech that they don't like.”
The pendulum swing
In 2017, after a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent, a Texas man put out a press release: “TODAY CHARLOTTESVILLE TOMORROW TEXAS A&M.” Alt-right speaker Richard Spencer signed on to speak at the rally in College Station, before the university cancelled it, citing safety concerns.
This decision came at a time when universities, in Texas and nationally, were facing significant blowback for restricting or cancelling appearances by conservative speakers, fueling a narrative that right-leaning voices were being unfairly silenced.
This outrage made its way to the Texas Legislature, which in 2019 passed a bill requiring that all outdoor spaces on university campuses be designated as open forums for public speech, and prohibiting universities from considering anticipated controversy when deciding whether to allow a speaker on campus.
“Our college students, our future leaders, they should be exposed to all ideas, I don’t care how liberal they are or how conservative they are,” state Sen. Joan Huffman, the Houston Republican who authored the bill, said at a hearing. “Sometimes we feel offended by what someone else says, and that’s just too bad in my book.”
To read the rest of the article, click on link: https://www.rawstory.com/amp/while-praising-charlie-kirks-commitment-to-free-speech-texas-leaders-move-to-punish-stud-2674015831
13 comments:
I am just goofing off as I wait for him to join me in our morning shower. Many times I have to text him something to remind him. It's a good thing our office is in our home my naked, watersplashed body. Stay wet.
I wouldn't want a person like Juan Montoya to teach my kids either.
Again, we speak to the moment.
But history will not forget.
If you don’t like it you can always self deport…nobody is stopping you
Some parents are like that. A parent moved her child from a teacher because the teacher was chicana.
Do they have pictures of Trump in colleges and universities?
Students should demand that. How about in public schools? One school needs to display the picture and others will follow. Students need to understand who is in power.
Here's a blast from the past. In 1977, the National Socialist Party of America, a neo-Nazi group, planned a march through Skokie, Illinois. A predominantly
Jewish community with Holocaust survivors among the residents. Residents attempted to block the march, and the case reached the Supreme Court. The Nazi's won their case with the assistance of David Goldberg, a Jewish attorney with the ACLU. Their right to march is protected by the First Amendment whether you agree with their philosophy or not. The march did not take place even though they were within their constitutional rights to do so.
Now, I am not a fan of Ted Cruz. Picturing him in my mind makes my skin crawl. But Cruz is on the right side of history by denouncing Trump's actions that stifle late night talk show hosts that disagree with or make fun of the POTUS. Kudos to Ted on this one. I will give credit where credit is due.
As you can self deport yourself.
John Holmes, AKA Johnny Wadd
This is what censorship looks like, Montoya...
https://dailycaller.com/2025/09/24/online-censorship-bill-just-one-signature-away-from-becoming-law-in-california/
Where was the ACLU when the Biden administration was telling Google, youTube, and facebook to censor conservatives? The ACLU of then no longer exists. Today it is an arm of the Democratic party.
Thank you Gov. Abbott
Tio Greg
Texas is ready for a CHANGE
Post a Comment