As ASU students and faculty from both sides of the political spectrum react to current events involving freedom of speech, they wrestle with the current state of the First Amendment.
During a "Prove Me Wrong" tabling event at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed. Kirk was hosting the live debate as a part of "The American Comeback Tour" that was run by Turning Point USA.
READ MORE: ASU community reacts to death of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk
Amid the outcry from some over Kirk's death, there also came the ignition of discussion and debate among some students and faculty about freedom of speech.
"The freedom of speech, our First Amendment — that's all he used, and it killed him," Rami Ben-David, a sophomore studying financial planning, said. "That's the worst part."
However, discourse regarding the freedom of speech has been further framed by the rise in political polarization across the country.
Research from Gallup, published in January 2025, found that as of 2024, Democratic and Republican ideologies were at their most extreme in 30 years among Americans, with a new high percentage of Republicans identifying as conservative, and a new high percentage of Democrats identifying as liberal.
For certain students it is this political division that is posing the biggest threat in terms of limitations on free speech.
"This issue has become too prevalent in our government on both sides," Afonso Machado, a sophomore studying political science, said. "This need to silence other people's ideas because we don't like them or because we don't agree with them — I do think it poses a genuine threat to our ability to have free speech in America."
To Owen Anderson, a professor in the School of Humanities, Arts and Cultural Studies, Kirk's death was a manifestation of the danger that Machado described — political polarization turning into the silencing of those with opposite views.
"The true attack on free speech is what happened to Charlie Kirk," Anderson wrote in an email statement. "Instead, those who disagree with Charlie Kirk should present their own arguments to show why he is wrong ... That freedom to debate Charlie was taken from us all."
Even some students with differing views on Kirk's ideologies commented that his death presents a dangerous sign for the future of free speech for individuals on both sides of the aisle.
"When he (Kirk) got assassinated, that is now establishing this precedent and this fear," Jacob George, a senior studying political science, said. "Somebody could come and shoot any one of us for our political views."
George also pointed to the recent deaths of Minnesota lawmakers Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, who were killed by a man impersonating a police officer in June, according to the New York Times. He said it was an example of both political violence and gun violence that has created an environment in which people are "very fearful of speaking up."
Despite Kirk's death setting a dangerous precedent in the eyes of some, others viewed it as a call to continue to speak out, in spite of danger.
"The message (of Kirk's death) that has passed on to me is that now it's my turn and the turn of my colleagues to pick up a microphone to use our voice and speak out even louder, because we're doing something right if people feel the need to silence our ideas," Machado said.
Even outside of current violent acts, George raised concerns about infringement of free speech by the federal government, citing the temporary cancellation of the late night show "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" as an example.
According to a report from the BBC, Kimmel's show was pulled off the air after the Federal Communications Commission threatened action against ABC for Kimmel's comments on his show about the "shooting of Charlie Kirk."
"Jimmy Kimmel Live!" was back on the air as of Sept. 23, but for students like George, the fact the show was taken off the air at all was cause for concern about the state of free speech.
"It's creating this precedence that any president now can come in here and just dictate what media they want people to watch or to listen to," George said. "Republicans claim that they are capitalist, then you let the market decide if they want to cancel someone … the market has spoken, and they want Jimmy Kimmel."
Machado agreed with George on the dangerous possibilities that accompany Kimmel's cancellation, despite personal disagreements with what was said on the show.
"We can't be hypocrites and say that it's wrong when some people do it, but it's okay when others do it," Machado said. "I don't think it's right to censor anyone for their opinions or thoughts on the matter."
These emerging concerns about the national state of free speech are also rising at a local level. Some University professors see both greater protections for this freedom and trends of limitation.
Donald Critchlow, a professor in the School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, said the University administration has some of the strongest codes for free speech regarding outside speakers, even if many of these speakers carry a certain political perspective.
The University's protection of free speech has been backed by multiple external organizations that analyze the strength of free speech protections, such as an A grade from the Anti-Defamation League and a green score from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
READ MORE: President Crow gives updates on the University amid political uncertainty in higher education
Even with University strengths, restrictions from external state and federal organizations have contributed to the concerns of some students about the safety of free speech.
"At the federal level, they're (universities) getting pressure from the secretary of education," George said. "There's a lot of other things that I think that is coming from the top down, and they're really putting pressure on the campuses because they don't want free speech."
George also said that the University has a duty of "not caving in" to pressure from the Trump administration in limiting speech.
Beyond external pressure, Critchlow also said there are more subtle steps the University can take to better protect free speech.
"Formal rules protecting free speech are necessary, but the larger issue is the culture in the classroom," Critchlow wrote in an email statement. "We need greater intellectual diversity among the faculty, and this can only come from above."
Anderson referred to the issues in classroom culture as the "chilling effect," in which conservative students and professors feel discouraged to express their opinions — for fear of being shunned if they do.
However, while Anderson referenced the "chilling effect" as a problem for conservative students, George described a similar issue in classroom culture.
"I also know that people just in class, they feel like they can't speak out because Turning Point has their professor watch list," George said. "I feel like they've even prohibited the freedom of speech for some of the teachers on campuses."
For Machado, key players in fostering the protection of free speech across partisan lines on campus are political organizations. Organizations should be able to teach and promote the notion that ideas can be disagreed upon and debated, he said.
However, with as much progress as individuals and organizations have made in fostering free speech, in the eyes of some, the issue is one without a simple solution and is subject to continuous debate.
"Since our founding, this has been a contested right, often taken to the courts," Critchlow wrote. "I expect this struggle over protecting free speech will continue."
Edited by Senna James, George Headley, Katrina Michalak and Pippa Fung.
Reach the reporter at sluba@asu.edu and follow @samluba6 on X.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on X.
Sam Luba is a Senior Reporter with the State Press, focusing on longer form news stories and breaking news coverage. He is a Sophomore studying political science and justice studies, and is a competitor with Sun Devil Mock Trial. He was the Editor-in-Chief of his high school news magazine. He is in his 3rd Semester with the State Press, working previously as a Part-Time Political Reporter.
