Fake “Free Speech” Champion Clay Higgins Now Wants To Use Gov’t Power To Silence Anyone Who “Belittles” Kirk’s Death
from the bunch-o'-hypocrites dept
Rep. Clay Higgins wants to use his government power to ban Americans from the internet for life if they say unkind things about Charlie Kirk’s death. Yes, the same Clay Higgins who just two years ago co-sponsored the “Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act“—a performative bill that did literally nothing except restate that government actors cannot engage in censorship.
Back then, he sanctimoniously declared:
“The American people have the right to speak their truths, and federal bureaucrats should not be dictating what is or isn’t true. We must continue to uphold the First Amendment as our founding fathers intended.”
The snarky thing to say here is that he’s had a change of heart. The more accurate thing to say is that Clay Higgins is a huge hypocrite. In the wake of the unfortunate killing of Charlie Kirk, Higgins suddenly thinks that the First Amendment no longer applies to him, and he can use his government power to force private companies to ban people for life over First Amendment protected speech:

In case you can’t see that, he says the following:
I’m going to use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk. If they ran their mouth with their smartass hatred celebrating the heinous murder of that beautiful young man who dedicated his whole life to delivering respectful conservative truth into the hearts of liberal enclave universities, armed only with a Bible and a microphone and a Constitution… those profiles must come down.
So, I’m going to lean forward in this fight, demanding that big tech have zero tolerance for violent political hate content, the user to be banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER. I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked. I’m basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
I’m starting that today.
That is all.
That is a US government official saying that he’s going to use state power to silence voices “for life” for protected speech, such as “belittling” Kirk’s death. He claims he’s going to directly seek to assert state power (removing licenses and permits, something that Congress has no actual authority to do).
That does not appear to be “upholding the First Amendment as our founding fathers intended.” It sure seems to be the opposite of that.
And, of course, you know that Higgins is an even bigger hypocrite than that. He has, somewhat famously, belittled others in similar situations. When Nancy Pelosi’s husband was subject to a violent politically motivated attack he absolutely belittled Pelosi, spreading a blatantly false conspiracy theory about who the attacker was.

By Higgins’ own standard, he should be “banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER” for that tweet. But of course, rules are only for the other team.
Indeed, we know he would freak out if sites actually banned him for something like that, because this is the same Rep. Clay Higgins that once told Twitter execs that he was going to have the FBI arrest them and have them sent to jail because they made the editorial choice to (very briefly) block the sharing of a NY Post article (a story that is widely misunderstood due to misleading conspiracy theories):
“You, ladies and gentlemen, interfered with the United States of America 2020 presidential election, knowingly and willingly,” Higgins said. “That’s the bad news, it’s gonna get worse because this is the investigation part. Later comes the arrest part. Your attorneys are familiar with that.”
Not surprisingly, when the Elon Musk-owned X was way, way, way more aggressive in blocking a story with hacked materials about JD Vance, I don’t recall Higgins threatening him with investigations and arrests.
This perfectly encapsulates the entire MAGA approach to “free speech”: it’s not a principle, it’s a weapon. Free speech is sacred when they want to spread lies about election fraud or attack their enemies. But the moment someone says something they don’t like, suddenly these self-proclaimed First Amendment champions are demanding government censorship that would make Xi Jinping proud.
Higgins’ threat isn’t just hypocritical—it’s genuinely dangerous. A sitting member of Congress is promising to use federal power to punish constitutionally protected speech. The founders he claims to revere would have been appalled by such authoritarian overreach.
But, as I keep asking, where are all those people who falsely claimed that any effort to encourage social media companies to change their moderation practices was the worst attack on free speech in the history of the country? Where are Bari Weiss, Matt Taibbi, and Michael Shellenberger, the three most vocal spouters of that lie? All three are attacking the responses… of Democrats. Not a one appears to have said anything about Higgins’ direct attack on speech.
The silence is deafening and revealing. These supposed free speech warriors are nowhere to be found when actual government censorship is being threatened by their political allies.
Incredibly, Shellenberger, who testified multiple times before Congress, including saying “one’s commitment to free speech means nothing if it does not extend to your political enemies” was whining on his Substack about how some amorphous group of NGOs are trying to censor him, while simultaneously retweeting Pennsylvania’s Senator Dave McCormick calling for UPenn to apparently punish Michael Mann for saying that the “the white on white violence has gotten out of hand,” which is a clear satirical reference to racist claims regarding crime.

But also, Mann’s literally saying the violence has gotten out of hand. How is that something worth punishing? And how is Michael Shellenberger, who claims that any effort by any government official to pressure private entities to punish people for their speech is a huge attack on free speech, suddenly now in favor of government official Dave McCormick ordering punishment for Michael Mann’s protected speech? And how is Michael Shellenberger, who testified before Congress about the importance of standing up for the free speech of your political enemies, suddenly silent on Higgins?
It’s hypocrites all the way down.
The performative bullshit about “censorship” from these clowns was always garbage. We’re just able to show it more clearly now.
Filed Under: bari weiss, charlie kirk, clay higgins, free speech, hypocracy, maga, matt taibbi, michael shellenberger, social media


Comments on “Fake “Free Speech” Champion Clay Higgins Now Wants To Use Gov’t Power To Silence Anyone Who “Belittles” Kirk’s Death”
And yet, they are just getting warmed up.
National Guard in Utah, tho’? Probably not, but who knows.
Re:
Not yet. First, we have “liberate” the liberal hell hole that is ::checks notes:: Tennessee.
Re: Re: Clay Higgins -- Makes Louisiana Proud
What a hypocrite. Given what I’ve seen of Charlie Kirk’s performative actions, I’m not surprised there are folks who didn’t like him.
…brig
Re:
Oh you bet. Trump pretty much just gave right-wing vigilante groups the implicit greenlight saying “Go for it.” and has promised to use the full weight of the government to go after those in his words “contributed” to his death.
Everyone who isn’t MAGA is now a target for their speech. Scary times we live in.
No-one hates free speech more than it's self-declared 'champions'
And once you normalize and enshrine the idea of stripping speech away from someone who mocks the death of someone on the regime’s side it becomes that much easier to push to apply that ‘penalty’ for other ‘lesser offenses’…
Republicans can’t help but remind people that they’ve never been actually in favor of free speech, and that their support has always been entirely contingent upon whether the person speaking is one they agree with, saying things that they agree with.
Republicans were celebrating assassinations of Democrats, their families, and their pets back in June. Republicans have never given a shit about school shootings, ever.
Now, all of a sudden, though.
Give me a fucking break.
“…armed only with a Bible and a microphone and a Constitution…”
So when he sees speech he doesn’t like, Higgins decides the Constitution is the thing you should drop instead of the hate-weaponized bible or the microphone that amplifies that hate.
Re:
But a cop thought it was a gun!
There’s no such thing as a Free Speech absolutist
These folk who claim to be free speech absolutists all want to censor speech they don’t like.
We may as well start censoring violent speech in a desperate attempt to stem the tide of political violence before it becomes a civil war, and stop listening to these nutters.
the point of free speech is that it allows speech you may not like or even speech you find offensive or speech that may criticize government officials or people you may admire .
people in the uk have been arrested for tweets that were deemed offensive or just holding up a sign Free palestine
you do not want to go in that direction in america
free speech is at risk in america
if you criticise the genocide in gaza you are labelled an antisemite maybe deported lose your
student grant and expelled.
once you bring in hate speech laws the concept of free speech is at risk of erasure
Re:
The UK isn’t having political gun violence occurring on a yearly basis, so they must be doing something right.
I’d love to go down that road. Looks a lot prettier than the one we’re currently on.
Re: Re: UK
We don’t have much gun violence here in the UK and it’s not really a part (criminality aside) of our culture.
But we do have Elon Musk interfering in our politics and calling for the dissolution of our government and its replacement by the far right and there are plenty of ‘patriots’* ready to answer his call..
Scary.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a “nazi” (you personally do this, MM) while simultaneously saying it is ok to fight nazis.
Yes, that is a call for violence in response to speech. 80+% of your commentators do this.
Re:
You lie so obviously and so blatantly it’s pathetic. I have never done this. I have called those who actually directly associate with Nazi ideology Nazis, because they are. I have called those engage in fascistic efforts to destroy democracy fascists.
But I have not, and would not, call anyone who merely disagrees with me a nazi.
You’re just lying because you have no actual argument.
Meanwhile, nice of you to completely ignore the actual topic here, which is that one of your political heroes is a fucking hypocrite.
It’s so obvious: you spent YEARS on this very site falsely insisting that a meek communication between a gov’t official and a website was the height of censorship, for which you needed a fainting couch. Yet, when one of your political heroes out and out promises to abuse the power of the state for actual censorship… you… change the subject.
Pathetic.
Re:
I’ve disagreed with Mike on various topics in the comments of articles for the last 15+ years. I’ve never been called a nazi or a fascist here that I know of. I’ve also not had my comments hidden because my disagreements aren’t vitriolic troll diatribes filled with useless ad hominems and evidence-free claims.
You’re calling yourself out here, not Mike. Every accusation is a confession, after all. You’re the one with the simplistic thinking that groups together anyone who disagrees with you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You are a liberal. Of course not.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not a liberal, but thank you for proving my point that you group together everyone who disagrees with you. I couldn’t have set this up to be such a perfect example! :: chef’s kiss ::
I’m pretty sure Jesus is actually thinking: “Wait a minute, if I go back to Earth now, they’ll try to silent me. Let’s wait another thousand years.”
Re:
If Jesus went back to Earth today, he would be seen as a political threat and would be crucified in media as a woke charlatan that must be deported but only after languishing in a horrible immigration facility for 3 days.
Re: 'Love thy neighbor? Turn the other cheek? Show compassion? Woke lib heretic!'
It’s a source of ongoing amusement to me knowing that the people clutching their bibles(to better beat people over the head with it) in the US the hardest would be the first in line to nail Jesus up to whatever piece of wood was handy if he every actually did come back and made the terrible mistake of showing up in the US.
Say only nice things about scum… or else.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
... and bluesky?
And your favorite bluesky is happy to join Higgins’ party, it seems:
https://mastodon.social/@criminalerin/115191598229834740
If Higgins’ approach to speech is “not a principle, it’s a weapon,” it seems the big sites are jumping over each other to be first in line to pull that trigger.
Re:
Bluesky is not a government agency. Whether I agree with its moderation practices in every instance or not, it’s free to exercise its 1st Amendment right to such moderation. Higgins is an elected official who swore to uphold the Constitution which very clearly and specifically prohibits him from doing exactly what he is threatening to do.
Well, it looks like the guy they think is the shooter has no political affiliation and his parents are Republicans. I guess The Cheato was wrong, again. There was mention that someone else in his family thought Charlie Kirk was a total asshat.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I’d rather be banned than killed.
right over left thanks
Re:
Every accusation a confession.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Where is the accusation? I made a statement of fact.
And when will you people realize that free speech is a principle not just an amendment?
Re: Re: Re:
A “fact” you pulled right out of your ass.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
you people are completely unhinged
My preference is now a fact I pulled out of my ass.
Go FUCK yourself you dumb stupid ignorant fuck. Hopefully talking as you people do makes you feel better cocksucker
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, principles aren’t interpreted or valued the same by all people. The amendment is a law that we have as a society, though not perhaps individually, agreed to honor (unless we’re fascist hypocrites who think laws aren’t important if you can get away with breaking them).
You may interpret the principle of free speech as “I can say whatever I want and people have to listen to me and I can lie and use free speech as an excuse, but nobody is allowed to criticize me and everything I say is a fact if I claim it is and I’m not required to provide citations and if I do, it will be from my preferred propaganda source…”
Someone else might recognize you’re a hypocrite who doesn’t actually value the principle of free speech because you’re cheering on a regime that is actively violating that principle. You abuse the the fact that Mike believes in free speech as a principle far more than you do because he hasn’t banned you from this website. Every word you say in the comments is a testament to his greater devotion to that principle than you even profess.
Re:
He says on a private website where he has no 1st Amendment protections but hasn’t been banned despite being a troll…
Re: Re:
What is it about commenting on a private website that gives the government any right to shut you up? The troll does have 1st Amendment rights here, it’s just that none of them apply to actions undertaken by the site owner or other users.
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing does. And I didn’t claim that. Do you need to reread what I wrote?
Note that you said rights and I said protections. But no, the 1st Amendment right of free speech doesn’t apply to private websites. It only protects against government limitations of speech. The government doesn’t own the website so his speech isn’t protected here from interference by the private party owner.
Which is what I’m referring to. You have a right to free speech that the government can’t legally interfere with without due process. Mike can ban you because he doesn’t like how you use punctuation, or any other reason under the sun or on the dark side of the moon or anywhere else in the galaxy.
Apparently I have to explain that I am pointing out that the troll supports unconstitutionally banning speech using the government because he’s claiming the people he disagrees with don’t deserve free speech, and yet the website he’s commenting on allows him to continue to comment despite him having no rights here and being a troll, indicating that Mike is a far more consistent and principled supporter of speech than trolls and conservative politicians. It also points out the hypocrisy feature-not-a-bug in which he uses speech allowed by a private party to advocate for the loss of speech of other people, including the site owner who he would likely love to see silenced.
Re:
“right over left”
Still feel that way now that it’s been shown that the killer was even further right and was likely mad that Kirk was too far left?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Lol, wut? Do you realize how stupid you sound? He scribbled antifa slogans on his casings.
This is why people laugh at the left, generally.
Re: Re: Re:
He also scribbled memes on his casings. Funny how you ignore that bit.
Re: Re: Re:
No. He scribbled groyper memes on his casings, you dumbass. You know, the neonazis who thought charlie was too woke? Those memes take antifa slogans and use them ironically. Learn some shit dumbass.
I’ve thought about the death of Charlie Kirk in reference to what my father said when I was a boy.
“Be careful what you say, or you might be sorry.”
I guess Charlie Kirk was the ultimate example of that saying.
holy shit really? it took me a year and a half to delete my facebook back in 2016. i still haven’t figured out how to get rid of my amazon account.
so all i have to do now, is offend this bozo, by talking smack about charlie ‘i fucked around and i found out’ kirk, then i get that done for free? for all platforms?
how do i sign up? do i need to go to twitter for this or one of those echo chambers like ‘truth’ social?
i thought we had to celebrate the 2nd amendment
I thought Kirk said a few deaths from gun violence was the acceptable price of upholding the 2nd amendment?
Re:
Right? If anything the people who are making a huge deal out of this are insulting Kirk’s memory by trampling all over his own words. He was perfectly willing to accept a few dead people on a regular basis as the price of having the second amendment so his fans and supporters should be too.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The performative bullshit about “censorship” from these clowns was always garbage. We’re just able to show it more clearly now
You could light up an Imax screen with that projection. Or are you going to quit censoring and allowing your snowflakes the power to hide speech that hurts their feel feels?
Re:
Said the snowflake being upset that he isn’t allowed to sit at the adult’s table due to his own childish behavior.
Come back when you have grown up and aren’t acting like a petulant child.
Re:
You’re literally complaining that you don’t have infinite freedom to shit on someone else’s website. The hiding of comments doesn’t stop them from being read. They’re still accessible and you know that because people still respond to your bullshit. And the flagging is a voting system. It’s democracy in action. You’re just upset that the majority of people think your bullshit is worth flagging. You’ve lost in the “marketplace of ideas” but you want some kind of artificially propped up privilege. Go buy a social media platform and enforce your views there like Musk did. You don’t have any privilege here.