Cancel Culture From the Right

GOP officials and big right wing accounts are conducting witch-hunts and firing campaigns over negative statements made online about Charlie Kirk.

Photo by Al Drago, Getty Images

GOP officials are fresh off their disappointment and confusion that Charlie Kirk’s killer came from a conservative, gun-loving Republican family. They are amplifying as-yet-unfounded rumors about Tyler Robinson. But given the FBI’s record so far on misinformation, if not outright disinformation, I am not giving this much credence. As I wrote about over the weekend, there is also plenty of evidence to suggest that Robinson was radicalized as a member of the Groypers, who are political extremists who detest Kirk, but we need to await more evidence.

Today, I want to focus on the aftermath of Kirk’s murder and discuss how GOP officials have now turned their anger on anyone publicly critical of him. These officials, and the right-wing accounts that back them and funnel them information, are using their positions to silence speech and cancel those with whom they disagree.

Perhaps worse still, they are encouraging their base to do the same, priming the country for the kind of fascist snitching that turns neighbor against neighbor the way Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes have done throughout history.

Hegseth horrorshow

Let’s start near the top of this reprehensible behavior.

On Friday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed Pentagon staff to hunt for posts by service members who had mocked Kirk, according to two defense officials who spoke to NBC News. He called on the public to report any posts that could be interpreted as negative about Kirk or unsympathetic about his murder.

Several service members were relieved of their jobs. The officials noted that Hegseth’s directive also pertains to others beyond service members who are “associated with the Defense Department.”

Hegseth appeared to confirm this in a post online. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell had tweeted, “It is unacceptable for military personnel and Department of War civilians to celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American. The Department of War” (yes, he called it that) “has zero tolerance for it.”

In response, Hegseth replied, “We are tracking all these very closely—and will address, immediately. Completely unacceptable.”

As NBC News reported,

Many social media users have heeded the call, assisting Hegseth and the Pentagon in finding and flagging posts. Dozens of service members and civilian Pentagon employees have had their posts highlighted and collected under the hashtag #RevolutionariesintheRanks.

Some of the posts in that collection don’t necessarily condone or mock Kirk’s murder but have been viewed as unfavorable — including one that read, “I don’t give a s--- about Charlie Kirk.”

It is a violation of free speech for a government official to punish, or call for the punishment of, those exercising it.

The directive received push back from military officers. Said one officer, “We can’t criticize the commander in chief, but I can’t remember anyone ever telling me we can’t say anything critical about a civilian like this. He was not in our chain of command or anything,”

FEMA fascism

Far-right activist Laura Loomer is known for stirring the pot, even if she had to delete a post that was highly critical of Charlie Kirk that had argued he was anti-Trump and a political opportunist, and even referenced the attempted Trump’s attempted assassination. Here is the relevant part of it, for the record and since she deleted it.

Loomer’s panic over her Kirk post may explain her current zeal. She is attempting to prove she was actually a Kirk fan instead of a major critic and has his back now that he is dead.

Her actions have direct consequences. Loomer called for the investigation of Army Major General Brett Sylvia, tweeting about his son Gavin, who works for FEMA but was placed on administrative leave. Gavin Sylvia had apparently posted on Instagram that Kirk was a “racist homophobe misogynist” (all true) and took issue with the nation flying its flags at half-mast for Kirk (as many did).

Are family members and government employees no longer allowed to question outrageous government actions, such as honoring a bigoted, hate-filled man, without fear of negative professional consequences?

Loomer’s tweet—which added the gem of a fact that Gavin Sylvia’s brother is “married to a Muslim” as if that is relevant at all, except to demonstrate her raw animus—resulted directly in FEMA placing the younger Sylvia on administrative leave. Loomer also called for Defense Secretary Hegseth to “review the employment” of Major General Brett Sylvia.

Fox celebrated the move to put Gavin Sylvia on leave with a headline that quoted a FEMA official: “This employee's words are revolting and unconscionable.”

Why, exactly? Because they are true?

FEMA went on to insist that “Celebrating the death of a fellow American is appalling, unacceptable and sickening,” even though nothing in Sylvia’s post actually celebrated Kirk’s death. It merely took issue with flying flags at half mast nationwide for Kirk, who indeed was a racist homophone and a misogynist. Half the country likely agrees that it is appalling to fly the national flag at half mast for a non-politician who espoused such hate.

Congressional contagion

It began when Chaya Raichik, the extremist behind the troll account Libs of Tik Tok, doxxed a teacher in Ellsworth, Wisconsin for posting about Kirk. The teacher wrote that Kirk had “spewed hate” and had said that “deaths are worth it for the Second Amendment.”

Both of these statements are objectively true.

She then added that she “disagreed with this statement and essentially everything that Kirk stood for” before leveling a tough take: “if you liked what he stood for, then you can’t be upset that he died. He fulfilled his destiny.”

These are admittedly harsh words. But they resemble many opinions across the Internet that noted the irony of Kirk being killed at a school by a gun—experiencing one of the very deaths that he argued were a price for the Second Amendment.

It’s bad enough that a large right-wing account targeted this particular individuals for her views. But it’s far worse what transpired next.

Rep. Derek Van Orden (R-WI), who represents the district where the teacher works, declared he would work “to remove all federal funding” for the “entire city of Ellsworth” including “grants and community directed projects” unless this was “rectified immediately.”

Let’s be clear. This type of collective punishment for the asserted “crime” of another member of the community is a favorite tool of fascist regimes. It seeks to leverage fear of reprisals to turn neighbors into snitches and enforcers in their own towns. We need to call it out and condemn it wherever we see it.

Online outing

As a darker example of where this is all headed, there is reportedly an online, searchable database which claims to list tens of thousands who were critical of Kirk online along with their employers. The right is seeking to leverage armies of online Kirk fans to dox and punish other Americans for their speech critical of Kirk’s well-documented hate.

Other online accounts, such as Flyover Conservatives, are targeting opponents of Kirk hoping to get them fired for expressing views similar to what Gavin Sylvia had written. One teacher in Lee’s Summit, Missouri also had the audacity to challenge the flag being flown at half mast for Kirk. “He should never have been shot, but he’s no martyr,” the teacher wrote, expressly condemning the violence. He added, “He’s no hero. He was a racist.”

Flyover Conservatives urged,

If you feel that these remarks represent a mentality that should not be receiving tax payer funded dollars then please join us in emailing Dr. Buck: David.buck@lsr7.net (superintendent of the Lees Summit School District)

The post reached over a quarter million viewers.

I was happy to see, however, that Superintendent Buck refused to take the bait. He responded to emails with the following message:

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me. I was made aware of this earlier this week. I understand that social media posts can evoke strong reactions, especially when they involve a victim in a tragedy such as this.

I want to assure you that we take all concerns from our community seriously, and we will share your feedback with the employee. In this case, it appears the post was made on personal time, using a personal account and device. While personal social media activity does not reflect the views of the district, employees do have protections under free speech.

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Thank you.

IT'S A GREAT DAY TO BE IN LEE'S SUMMIT! #LSR7 #R7PROUD

David Buck, Ed.D.

Superintendent

Lee's Summit R-7 School District

Should we tolerate the intolerant?

For years, Republicans have claimed they are the party of free speech and railed against being “cancelled” online for their speech, which often espouses hate, condones violence, and dehumanizes vulnerable communities such as immigrants and trans individuals.

But when given the opportunity to suppress speech critical of one of their own, they do not hesitate and reveal their sheer hypocrisy on this issue. Cancel culture is alive and flourishing among GOP officials and right-wing influencers.

This you, Matt Wallace?

To my mind, the circumstances today well illustrate something called the “Paradox of Tolerance.”

In a tolerant society, where all views and opinions are supposed to be permitted to have voice, what about those that expressly espouse intolerance and exclusion?

Political philosopher Karl Popper raised this paradox back in 1945 in his work, “The Open Society and its Enemies.” He argued that an absolutely tolerant society would eventually be destroyed by the intolerant, who would exploit the society's openness to seize power through authoritarian means.

John Rawls expanded on this thinking in “A Theory of Justice.” While Rawls argued that an open and just society should generally tolerate the intolerant, it also has a reasonable right to self-preservation. Rawls drew the line for this at the point the intolerant begin to affect the actual liberties of others

We are now at that point. Indeed, we are well past it.

People like Charlie Kirk stoked division and stirred hatred against minorities, women and the LGBTQ+ while he was alive. We on the tolerant left should not be silenced in any way from pointing this out after he is dead. Those who seek to use their official positions to censor such speech are acting unconstitutionally. And the accounts doxxing and calling for punishment for such speech must be seen for what they are: sponsors of stochastic terror.

When the GOP later inevitably tries to claim that it’s actually the party of Free Speech, remember this moment and these receipts. Republican extremists only believe in their own right to threaten, endanger and attack others. But when others dare criticize one of their own for doing exactly this, they leap to silence and intimidate.

These are the intolerant members of our society who are now taking away the rights of others to speak and participate. These are the people a tolerant society has no obligation to tolerate because we have a reasonable right of self-preservation.