What the Charlie Kirk backlash reveals about America’s new free speech battles

A man helps to load a truck with equipment from the Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show after it was suspended for remarks regarding Charlie Kirk's assassination, in Hollywood, Los Angeles. (Courtesy: Reuters photo)

In the days since Charlie Kirk’s assassination, conservative leaders and grassroots supporters have mounted campaigns to shame, fire, or prosecute those who spoke critically of him. This rapid escalation has mirrored tactics often associated with the progressive left’s “cancel culture,” with more than 100 individuals — from teachers to doctors — reportedly facing repercussions for their remarks, the New York Times reported.

High-profile interventions

The controversy peaked when ABC suspended comedian Jimmy Kimmel after he suggested Kirk’s accused killer might have been aligned with Trump supporters. Federal Communications Commission chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, hinted that broadcasters could face consequences for airing Kimmel’s show. The move prompted criticism from influential conservatives including Ben Shapiro, who warned that weaponizing regulators against speech could backfire under a future Democratic administration.

Carlson, Cruz and conservative caution

Some conservative figures are urging restraint. Tucker Carlson argued that Kirk, known as a free speech advocate, would not have wanted his death used to justify restrictions. Senator Ted Cruz compared the FCC’s pressure on ABC to mob tactics, calling it a dangerous precedent. Even Attorney General Pam Bondi walked back remarks about prosecuting protesters for “hate speech” after pushback from right-wing commentators.

The idea of a ‘woke right’

Critics and scholars have begun to describe these tactics as the rise of a “woke right.” Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution said the efforts to silence critics mirror how the left policed speech on campuses in past years, warning that conservatives risk distorting public discourse by making dissent appear marginal. Writer James A. Lindsay, a former ally of Kirk’s organization Turning Point USA, echoed concerns, saying conservatives risk self-destruction if they continue demanding “a pound of flesh” from Kirk’s detractors.

Defences and denials

Many conservatives reject the label, arguing that defending Kirk — a husband and father of two — is not comparable to what they see as the left’s excessive cancel culture. Representative Dan Crenshaw said, “That’s a little bit different than cancelling someone for glorifying the assassination of a family man.” Others, like strategist Steve Bannon, embraced the harder line, insisting this is an “inflection point” where winning matters more than unity.

Risk of overreach

Writers like Rod Dreher, who has warned about authoritarian tendencies on both sides, cautioned that anger in the aftermath of Kirk’s killing could cloud judgment, much like the post-9/11 rush to war. While conservatives remain united in mourning Kirk, the divide over whether to suppress critical voices highlights a broader struggle inside the movement — between defending free speech and enforcing loyalty.