There are numerous issues with the recent firings of comedians who have criticized the Trump administration and its supporters. From Stephen Colbert to Jimmy Kimmel – taking (figurative) shots at politicians of all parties is what they do. Millions of Americans love it, and the First Amendment of the Constitution has, until now, protected it.
The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
We were pleasantly surprised to learn that Rep. Jeff Hurd is a staunch defender of free speech rights, and it appears that his Republican colleagues were surprised as well. In an environment of media consolidation, and with Trump influencing FCC merger approvals in favor of companies that silence his critics, the free speech landscape is rapidly eroding. The Herald’s editorial board would like to thank Rep. Hurd for standing up for the First Amendment, which also protects freedom of the press.
On Wednesday night, during his Tele-Town Hall, Hurd was asked about his vote earlier in the day against censuring Ilhan Omar (D-MN) for her comments surrounding Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Hurd voted against a measure by Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) that would have stripped Omar of her committee assignments. He joined all Democrats and three other House Republicans – Reps. Mike Flood of Nebraska, Tom McClintock of California and Cory Mills of Florida – to kill the measure 214-213.
During the Town Hall, Hurd defended his vote, stating that Omar made “horrible, ghoulish and evil” remarks about Kirk, whom Hurd described as a “conservative First Amendment fierce advocate for free speech and debate and ideas,” following Kirk’s assassination in Utah. But said, he voted against a House censure because silencing her would violate the First Amendment. He argued the proper response to reprehensible speech is more speech, not censorship – a principle that also aligns with Kirk’s commitment to free expression.
His party and some voters have pummeled Hurd for his vote, but he set an important example of the standard to which all members of Congress should adhere. They took the Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, First Amendment enemies are increasingly within our borders.
As with everything, there is nuance. The Zeteo interview (see https://bit.ly/47LmJJN at 9:08) in which Omar’s comments were captured begins the discussion of Kirk’s killing with Omar stating, “It was mortifying to hear the news and see the video. All I could think about was his wife, his children … My heart does break for those babies.”
Many people are memorializing Charlie Kirk in different ways. Whatever one believes about him, his comments were at times incendiary. He did not shy away from bigotry, intolerance, exclusion, and stereotyping. And that’s the point. As hateful as Kirk’s speech at times was (The Guardian, Sept. 11), he was a staunch free speech advocate and his speech was protected, as was Omar’s.
On debate, Kirk said, “We record all of it so that people can see these ideas collide. When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence … because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.”
One caller criticized Hurd for calling Omar “a crazy liberal congresswoman from Minnesota.” Hurd’s repeated use of terms like “horrible,” “ghoulish,” and “evil” Kirk was guilty of but, if true to his word, would also consider dehumanizing rhetoric – the kind that contributes to political violence, which is a bipartisan problem.
Tragedies like these call for self-reflection. What am I doing to escalate or de-escalate rhetoric that can lead to political violence? How am I humanizing or dehumanizing people? Let’s hope for reflection and the “better angels of our nature,” as Abraham Lincoln urged in his first inaugural address, to reunite the fractured United States.
