More than a dozen state attorneys general are taking a stand for free speech on college campuses. In a letter directed at university and college presidents, they delivered a strong warning against using the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk as an excuse to stifle conservative voices. The letter, sent on Thursday, emphasized that universities must not impose restrictions that amount to a “tax on free speech.” The letter candidly states, “It is critical that universities are not imposing what would effectively be a tax on free speech.”
As reported, the attorneys general highlighted a concerning trend where some college administrators capitalize on events of violence to justify limiting certain viewpoints under the guise of safety. They stressed that while security is important, invoking violence as a rationale to suppress speech is unacceptable, labeling the phenomenon the “Assassin’s Veto.” The letter urged institutions to firmly commit to defending free expression, underscoring that they “must not use the burden of protecting free speech to prevent free speech.”
Kirk’s assassination at Utah Valley University, as he participated in a Turning Point USA event, has reignited discussions around safety protocols and their application to conservative speakers. The letter specifically mentions allegations that universities have previously charged higher security fees for conservative events, leading to canceled appearances. Historical precedents include a 2018 settlement at the University of California, Berkeley, where conservative groups claimed discriminatory practices regarding security costs and restrictions that impacted their freedom of speech.
The state attorneys general called on colleges to impose security measures in a “content-neutral and viewpoint-neutral manner.” They articulated a clear stance that any security policies must be applied without bias, warning that these unjust practices could lead to legal action. “There is a long and troubling trend of universities misusing security policies to unconstitutionally chill conservative speech on campus,” the letter claimed, referencing a recent case against the University of New Mexico when a court intervened due to their attempt to impose exorbitant fees on a conservative event.
Brenna Bird, the Iowa Attorney General who led this initiative, remarked on the troubling implications of Kirk’s death for free speech. “Charlie was murdered while debating on a university campus, a place where the free exchange of ideas should be encouraged,” she noted. It is essential, she added, that actions taken in the wake of this tragedy do not hinder open dialogue.
The letter bears the signatures of seventeen Republican attorneys general from various states. The collective message was one of urgency and clarity: campuses should serve as arenas for vibrant debate from all sides. The letter emphasized that “the campus should be the very place where the First Amendment rings loudest for all to hear.”
The attorneys general are pushing for accountability. They assert that if universities invoke security concerns to impose excessive fees, they might be violating consumer protection laws, as students deserve an environment that supports open discourse. They stated, “If we receive complaints about your school, we will fully and fairly investigate those complaints.”
The response among civil rights advocates and conservative activists has been positive. Nicole Neily, president of Parents Defending Education, commented on the initiative, expressing gratitude that state attorneys general are reminding universities of their responsibilities regarding free speech. She noted, “I can think of no better way to honor Charlie’s legacy than through ensuring that students’ voices cannot be silenced by fear or malice.”
Others echoed this sentiment. Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, recognized Bird’s leadership in addressing these issues. He criticized university bureaucrats for permitting an environment where threats deter free speech. “Such a practice is not just antithetical to everything Charlie Kirk represented but to the very principles of America,” he stated, expressing hope that this moment could inspire a broader movement against limitations on free expression on campuses nationwide.
Kirk’s funeral service is set for Sunday in Arizona, expected to attract notable figures, including former President Donald Trump. His death has not only sparked a renewed commitment to free speech advocacy but has also highlighted the ongoing struggles that conservative voices endure in academic environments. It remains to be seen how universities will respond to these demands from state officials, but the call for a faithful adherence to the principles enshrined in the First Amendment is clearer than ever.
"*" indicates required fields
