Who Really Owns Free Speech After Charlie Kirks Death?

Who Really Owns Free Speech After Charlie Kirk’s Death?

https://rumble.com/v6zcq32-who-really-owns-free-speech-after-charlie-kirks-death.html

https://gorightnews.com/who-really-owns-free-speech-after-charlie-kirks-death/

https://youtu.be/j7PNtzRTa8w

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/who-really-owns-free-speech-after-charlie-kirks-death--67864387

A deep dive into the cancel culture paradox after Charlie Kirk’s death, exposing how his name is being misused to justify censorship and government coercion, with a spotlight on Jimmy Kimmel’s hypocrisy, Disney’s selective punishments, and the wider dangers of cancel culture.

#CharlieKirk, #FreeSpeech, #CancelCulture, #JimmyKimmel, #Disney, #GinaCarano, #SheHulk, #FirstAmendment, #GoRight, #BoykinCommentary, #DefendLiberty

Never Justify Losing Freedom
#GoRight with Peter Boykin

Let’s talk plainly about the First Amendment and what it really means, because too many people today only seem to defend free speech when it benefits their side. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

That is not fancy legal jargon, it is a firewall against tyranny. It means the government cannot decide which voices get heard and which voices get silenced. It does not exist to protect the comfortable or the popular. It exists to protect the uncomfortable, the offensive, the dissenting. Because the second you let the government decide what counts as acceptable speech, you have already given away your freedom.

And yet here we are, in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s death, watching people twist his name to justify censorship and cancel culture, the very things he stood against. Kirk built his career on open debate. He believed all voices should be heard, even when they clashed with his own. He rejected cancel culture on principle. He warned against government overreach because he knew a government powerful enough to silence one side will eventually silence everyone.

So when I see people standing with Kirk while calling for cancelations in his name, I have to say it: you are not honoring him, you are betraying him. If you think canceling others in Kirk’s memory somehow protects his legacy, you are spitting on what he lived and died for.
Freedom is not tested by how we treat the voices we love. Freedom is tested by how we defend the voices we despise. That is the hard truth. You do not get to cherry-pick liberty. If you cheer when your opponents are silenced, do not be surprised when the same blade is turned against you.

The First Amendment is not a suggestion. It is the backbone of this Constitutional Republic. And once we start excusing its erosion, because “they deserved it” or because it feels convenient, we lose it for everyone.

Never justify losing freedom. Because once it is gone, it does not come back.

For more unfiltered truth, visit GoRightNews.com and tune in to #GoRight with Peter Boykin across Rumble.com/GoRightNews, Spreaker, Spotify, Apple, Amazon, YouTube, GAB, Truth Social, TikTok, Facebook, and X. Support the fight for free speech at Cash App $GoRightNews.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/goright-with-peter-boykin-gorightnews-com--3096608/support.

📰 Read More About Peter Boykin:

📖 Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boykin

📖 https://PeterBoykin.com

📢 LISTEN & WATCH:

🎧 Podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/show/goright-with-peter-boykin

📺 Rumble Videos: https://rumble.com/GoRightNews

📺YouTube Videos: .css-j9qmi7{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;font-weight:700;margin-bottom:1rem;margin-top:2.8rem;width:100%;-webkit-box-pack:start;-ms-flex-pack:start;-webkit-justify-content:start;justify-content:start;padding-left:5rem;}@media only screen and (max-width: 599px){.css-j9qmi7{padding-left:0;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;}}.css-j9qmi7 svg{fill:#27292D;}.css-j9qmi7 .eagfbvw0{-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;color:#27292D;}

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Who really owns free speech? After Charlie Kirk's death, a
strange new silence canceled culture's double edged sword. A friend
of mine once said, the measure of a society isn't
how it treats the people it loves, but how it
handles the ones it can't stand, And the weeks after

(00:22):
Charlie Kirk's assassination that wisdom has been tested and exposed.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
The public grieving was immediate.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
Vigils, hashtags, and tributes poured out across the country, but
almost as quickly came the ugliness. Memes mocking Charlie Kirk's death,
jokes tasteless enough to make a hardened sen it cringe,
and voices on the left taking open glee as if
tragedy itself were a political victory. America began writing two

(00:57):
very different stories on one's side and nation honoring a
man who built his name on open debate on the other,
an avalanche of cruelty that reveled just how toxic politics
has become, even when death is treated like a win.

Speaker 2 (01:14):
But then came the consolations.

Speaker 1 (01:17):
The same crowd that had no problem deepplatforming conservatives like
Roseanne Barr are blacklisting Trump supporters, our Trump himself for
nothing more than their vote, suddenly found themselves on the
chopping block for being too cruel about Kirk. Jimmy Kimball,

(01:37):
once untouchable in late night comedy, saw his career cut short.
Comedians of Lawrence's and media personalities discovered that their jokes
about Kirk could cost them ratings, contracts, or even their
lively goods. What began as an outpowering of grief had
quickly turned into a mirror showing how council culture or

(02:00):
doesn't stay confined to one side of the aisle, and
thus the canceled cultural paradox. This raises a complicated question
when does criticism fall under free speech and when does
it cross the line into something that justifies discipline. The
Internet is full with voices. It's filled fill to the brim.

(02:24):
Some learned, some mocked, and some weaponized as passing for
their own agendas. What caught many by surprise was it
just the nastiness from Kirk's critics, but the blacklash against
them and sensitive jokes about Kirk means mocking his death
and this new climate, those weren't just free expression. They
became fireable offenses. Major employees acted swiftly, cutting replicant citing

(02:51):
reputational damage and insentivity. Platforms tighten their rules, and some
voices were silenced, not by mob outrage, each corporate calculation,
and here lies the contradiction. For years, the left weaponized
cancel culture against the right. Businesses, schools, and Hollywood declared

(03:12):
dissenting opinions unacceptable. If you supported Donald Trump, you could
lose your livelihood. If you question the WOK line, you
risk exile. I know that all myself. Now those same
people are facing the same blade they want sharpened.

Speaker 2 (03:30):
Employers, perfectly within.

Speaker 1 (03:32):
Their rights, are firing those who bring shame or backlash.
Corporations chase ratings and brand protection not principle, and in
a free market they can do that. Thus the line
between free speech and consequences.

Speaker 2 (03:49):
Has been drawn.

Speaker 1 (03:51):
Let's be clear, Employers absolutely have the right to fire
employees who that who embarrassed their companies. That's not the
same as the state stripping someonet of their ability to
state a speak. But when social media giants are hauled
before Congress and accused of quote letting right wing violence

(04:11):
thrive are left wing, They're no longer talking about private discipline,
they're talking about government driven censorship. But there's a dark undercurrent.
When the President of the United States, Donald Trump himself
weighed in not just with words of grief for a
fallen ally, but with threats of boycotts, calls for license reviews,

(04:36):
and pressure campaigns against media companies and leaning on platforms,
supporters cheered. Critics warned that it's not free market accountability,
that it's government coheresion. And this isn't just councel culture,
it's creeping state pressure. If government officials can lean on

(04:56):
private platforms the silent speech and one Washington gets to
decide what is a sensible speech, the First Amendment becomes
a suggestion instead of a shield. This creates a dangerous paradox.
In the chaos, one truth gets buried. Kirk himself would
have never cheered a bob shutting down free speech left

(05:20):
or right. He believed debate, even when messy, uncomfortably kind,
was the only path forward. Kirk was a man who
built his career on the belief that I ideas should
clash in the open, not be smovered in the dark.
Yet his death is now being leveraged to justify precisely

(05:42):
the kind of speech policing he fought against, which bring
us to the case of Jimmy Kimball and Disney. Now,
at the time of me reading this, Jimmy Kimball has
been reinstated, but yet there's still some places that will
not carry Jimmy Kimball. But we're going to talk about this.
When I wrote this, no figure CAPI shures the hypocrisy

(06:06):
of cancel culture better than Jimmy Kimball. Before he reinvented
himself as the late night political voice, Kimball co hosted
The Man Show with Adam Parolla. The show was filled
with beer chugging, annex skits where women were treated as propped,
and comedy routines drenched in sexism that would be torn

(06:29):
apart in today's cultural climbing. Kimble even performed in blackface
while impersonating NBA star Karl Malone. Suffened that his destroyed
careers destroyed many careers forevers.

Speaker 2 (06:43):
I mean as Kramer.

Speaker 1 (06:46):
Fast forward in the Late Night Career and Kimball became
a proud supporter of cancel culture. He mocked conservatives who
lost their jobs, laughed when Trump supporters were silenced, and
when Trump was taking off of Twitter and promoted boycotts
when it suited the progressive narrative, the irony is unavailable.

(07:06):
The Jimmy Kimball of Late Night would have canceled the
Jimmy Kimball of The Man Show, And when Charlie Kirk's
death became a cultural flashpoint, Kimball himself was called in
the council storm. He had cheered when right wing figures
were taken down, but suddenly the same system turned on him.

(07:28):
His show is yanked by ABC, the very network owned
by Disney, showing how quickly the winds of outrage can shift.
Disney itself has been a central player in cancel culture hypocrisy.
Even Marvel actress Titania Mascelline I'm sure I butchered her name,

(07:48):
who also starred in Shee Holp I Like Shee Holp,
publicly called for political boycotts while being shielded by the
same company that had no problem canceling over others. Literally
as she hoped works for Marvel, called and works for Disney,
called for the boycotting of Disney.

Speaker 2 (08:09):
Oh boy, really.

Speaker 1 (08:11):
Ginutt Creno, a conservative actress from The Mandalorian, was fired
by Disney for her right leaning.

Speaker 2 (08:18):
Posts on social media.

Speaker 1 (08:20):
The company that claims to stand for creativity and inclusion
has repeatedly act as judge and jury, deciding which political
views are acceptable.

Speaker 2 (08:30):
And which you're punishable. But this is the ultimate bite
the hand that feeds you moment.

Speaker 1 (08:35):
Kimball fried under the same culture that celebrated counseling conservatives.
Disney profited while selecting punishing those with the quote wrong opinions,
and now the outreach machine is consuming the very people
and corporations that fed it.

Speaker 2 (08:52):
So let's talk about what Charlie Kirk actually stood for.

Speaker 1 (08:56):
The tragedy is now Kirk's name is now being twisted
into any for the very things he fought against. Kirk
built his career insisting that all voices deserve to be heard,
even the harsh ones. He welcomed debate because he knew
conversation revealed common ground. He rejected council culture on principle,

(09:18):
and he warned against government overreach because he knew the
government powerful enough to silence one side will eventually silence everyone.
And yet in the afternath of his death, people shouted
stand with Kirk are doing everything but standing with his values.

(09:38):
They are using his name as a tool to justifying
silencing voices, pushing censorship, and demanding government control over speech.

Speaker 2 (09:47):
And Kirk would have despise that