The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that could reshape counseling freedom across America. The law at issue is one of several so-called “conversion therapy bans” that restrict what therapists may say to their clients.

The Ruth Institute calls them what they are: “Must Stay Gay” laws.

The fight for counseling freedom isn’t about forcing anyone to change. It’s about defending every person’s right to seek help aligned with their own beliefs and goals.

These laws silence counselors and harm families, especially young people struggling with trauma, anxiety, and sexual confusion. The question before the court is simple: Does the First Amendment allow a state to dictate which viewpoints a licensed therapist may express?

A strong signal from the court

The central issue in Chiles is viewpoint discrimination. Colorado’s law allows therapists to affirm a child’s same-sex attraction or gender confusion — but forbids them from helping a client resist or change those feelings.

Justice Samuel Alito captured the absurdity in one hypothetical, which I paraphrase (the whole argument is here):

An adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist; he feels uneasy and guilty about feeling attracted to other boys. He asks the therapist to help him feel better as a gay man. Colorado law permits this. Another adolescent male goes to a licensed therapist and asks him to help him feel less attracted to other boys. Colorado law forbids this.

That’s government picking sides in a moral debate, not equality under the law.

When pressed, Colorado’s attorney stumbled badly. Alito then asked whether “medical consensus” has ever been wrong. She hesitated, and he reminded her of Buck v. Bell,the notorious 1927 decision that upheld forced sterilization based on “progressive” science. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed the common progressive opinion at the time: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In closing, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Campbell, who represents therapist Kaley Chiles, delivered the knockout line:

The state of Colorado allows a 12-year-old girl to seek counseling to affirm her so-called gender identity as a boy without parental consent — but forbids her, even with her parents, from seeking help to accept herself as female.

That’s blatant viewpoint discrimination. On this point, the justices seemed receptive.

Junk science and the ‘born this way’ myth

The state also claimed that no one has ever changed their sexual attractions — a claim as false as it is arrogant. One counterexample disproves it, and there are thousands. Our amicus brief cites studies and testimonies from men and women who experienced real change, often through talk therapy.

Colorado’s attorney dug herself in deeper, asserting that all theories linking abuse or family dynamics to sexual identity have been “debunked.” They haven’t. The research she relies on doesn’t distinguish between minors and adults, licensed and unlicensed therapists, or talk therapy and coercive “aversion” practices.

That’s ideology, not science. And the justices noticed.

Photo by Sakorn Sukkasemsakorn via Getty Images

The state’s lawyer also leaned on the claim that being gay is innate and immutable. She presented no evidence for that assertion, only the assumption that it must be true. But twin and genetic studies contradict it. Many people once identified as LGBT and no longer do. They exist, they matter, and they expose the lie behind the “born this way” narrative.

What comes next

The court offered no hints about how it will rule on the immutability question. But the justices heard enough to know that Colorado’s law enforces one approved orthodoxy and punishes dissent. That’s unconstitutional — and morally indefensible.

The fight for counseling freedom isn’t about forcing anyone to change. It’s about defending every person’s right to seek help aligned with their own beliefs and goals.

Here at the Ruth Institute, we’ll keep pressing the truth: “Must Stay Gay” is not OK.

Christian counselors fight for freedom of speech before the Supreme Court

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

stellalevi via iStock/Getty Images

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

YouTube offers 'second chances' to banned creators — but with huge asterisks

YouTube announced in an official blog post on Thursday that it will give second chances to some users who had their channels terminated.

In late September, banned creators got the impression that they would be reinstated on YouTube after Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) wrote on X that Google had committed to allowing "ALL creators previously kicked off YouTube due to political speech violations to return to the platform."

When controversial commentators Alex Jones and Nick Fuentes tested out the claim by starting new YouTube channels, they were promptly removed from the platform.

'We may take action to protect the community.'

YouTube quickly responded by saying it had not yet rolled out the new pilot program, while a spokesman for Rep. Jordan told Blaze News that the new program would only "extend at a minimum to any users banned for policies no longer in effect," such as policies pertaining to alleged misinformation about COVID-19 and elections.

In YouTube's new blog post, the company wrote that it has heard from creators "loud and clear" that they want more options to return to the platform.

"So we’re happy to share that we’re introducing a pilot program to offer some qualified creators an opportunity to rebuild their presence on YouTube," the blog stated. "Starting today, some previously terminated creators will have the opportunity to request a new YouTube channel."

The platform noted that "not every type of channel termination" will be eligible, however, starting with only those who have been banned from the platform for at least one year.

— (@)

YouTube went on to say it would "consider several factors" when evaluating which excommunicated creators could apply for a new channel.

This included whether or not the creator has "committed particularly severe or persistent violations" of YouTube's community guidelines, or whether the creator's "on- or off-platform activity harmed or may continue to harm the YouTube community, like channels that endanger kids' safety."

YouTube also revealed that the latest pilot program would not be available to anyone banned for copyright infringement, or those who have violated the "creator responsibility" policies.

This area is likely the most contentious portion of the new program rules, as it covers a wide swath of undefined activity that extends to the content creator's personal life and conduct outside of YouTube.

YouTube states that a creator could be in violation of the responsibility code if his or her behavior "harms" YouTube's "users, community, employees or ecosystem."

"We may take action to protect the community," YouTube explains. An attached video added that conduct that loses the platform ad revenue can also be considered a violation.

"YouTube and advertisers don't want to be associated with that level of craziness," the video host said sternly. "And when advertisers pull their spend, everybody loses."

"Inappropriate" behavior can also include the intention to cause malicious harm to others, or "participating in abuse or violence, demonstrating cruelty."

- YouTube

By now, creators know that such vague terminology can and will be used against them in the court of YouTube appeals, with the appeal process throwing up a whole other barrier within the new program.

If banned creators lose an appeal, they will also have to endure the mandatory one-year period before applying through the second chances program.

Another hurdle arises if a creator deleted his or her own channel. "Creators who deleted their YouTube channel/Google account will not be able to see the ‘request a new channel’ option at this time," YouTube wrote.

Creators will know they are eligible for the second chances program simply by seeing an option to request a new channel when they log into the YouTube Studio on their computer through their previously deleted channel.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Free speech is a core American value

Freedom of speech on university campuses has collapsed. Left-leaning college administrators, faculty, and students have been silencing conservative voices, and conservative students are increasingly adopting the left’s errant ways. The Trump administration has launched a strong counterattack that also seems poised to suppress speech.

The First Amendment’s free speech guarantees are at the core of our liberties. As Justice Louis Brandeis explained in Whitney v. California(1927), “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

Conservatives debate and debunk bad ideas — they don’t silence those with whom they disagree.

Though set out in a concurring opinion, Justice Brandeis’ counter-speech doctrine has become the bedrock of free speech jurisprudence. In the milestone First Amendment case of United States v. Alvarez (2012), Justice Anthony Kennedy cited Justice Brandeis, opining, “The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth.”

Many in Gen Z and younger Millennials would beg to differ. To many of these students and recent graduates, particularly — but not only — on the left, offensive speech is violence that should be silenced — and with physical violence, if necessary.

A telling survey

For the last six years, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has surveyed tens of thousands of students at hundreds of American universities to evaluate the status of free speech on campuses. Its most recent survey, in collaboration with pollster College Pulse and RealClearEducation, included 68,510 students at 257 universities.

The results are troubling. Together with other surveys, campus activism, and social media invective, a considerable decline in support for free speech is manifest, particularly among younger Americans on the left.

FIRE’s scores are based on 12 components, including student perceptions of six factors, three areas of campus speech policies, and three types of speech controversies. FIRE generates a blended score on a 100-point scale, which it converts to letter grades. Claremont McKenna College (not affiliated with Claremont Institute) received the highest score, 79.86, and Columbia University’s Barnard College the lowest, 40.74. My alma mater, Columbia College, was next lowest at 42.89.

Just 11 of the 257 schools surveyed received a grade of C or higher; 14 received a C-minus; 63 ranged from D-minus to D-plus; and 168 institutions — nearly two-thirds —received an F. Of the top-10 schools, only Claremont McKenna did better than a C grade, scraping by with a B-minus, though FIRE observed that but for rounding scores, the college would have received a C-plus. Each of the other nine top-ranked schools received a C.

According to FIRE, the lowest-ranked schools are home to restrictive speech policies, threats to student press freedom, speaker cancellations, and the quashing of student protests. Only 36% of students said that their school’s administration protects free speech. To the contrary, the great majority of campuses are inhospitable to faculty and students who oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion, observe religious tenets, are pro-life, favor Israel in its struggle with Hamas, or otherwise fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Top-down indoctrination

The most troubling result of FIRE’s survey and other recent studies is that educators in both K-12 and higher education are indoctrinating students in ideologies that are completely adverse to free speech.

FIRE warned that there has been a “steady erosion of free expression at colleges and universities,” adding that “the atmosphere isn’t just cautious — it’s hostile.” To stop speakers with whom they disagree, at least 71% of students surveyed (a high) support shouting; 54% (a high) endorse blocking other students from attending a speech on campus; and 34% (also a high) support the use of violence at least some of the time.

The FIRE survey found that 76% of students would stop someone from saying that Black Lives Matter is a hate group; 74% would stop a speaker from saying that transgender people have a mental disorder; and 60% would not allow a speaker to say that abortion should be completely illegal. These numbers suggest almost universal support from left-leaning students to bar speakers with whom they disagree, and at least some support from conservatives. American liberals used to champion free speech, which was the message of those angered by Disney’s suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.

Our rights are under attack. The remedy for the excesses of the radical left is to restore an understanding of why America is a beacon of liberty — not to adopt the left’s worst impulses.

Smaller majorities, comprised chiefly of conservative students, would bar speakers from advocating that the Catholic Church is a pedophilic institution (62%), that the police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan (62%), or that children should be allowed to transition without parental consent (51%). While I disagree with these perspectives, it is not conservative doctrine to bar speakers who have bad ideas.

Conservatives debate and debunk bad ideas — they don’t silence those with whom they disagree.

A more careful review of Claremont McKenna’s scores and the national data demonstrates the fervor of left-leaning students to suppress speech with which they disagree. Claremont McKenna ranked only 24th for tolerance of conservative speakers and 186th in the closely correlated category of tolerating differences. Overall, most campuses received higher marks for tolerating controversial liberal speakers than for tolerating controversial conservative speakers.

On a positive note, 79% of respondents thought their college protects free speech, and about half would feel comfortable disagreeing with their professors on controversial political topics. However, anecdotal evidence and surveys suggest that conservative students would feel less secure in speaking candidly than liberals.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

One-sided censorship

A decline in support for free speech and an increase in support for violence to suppress opposing views go hand in hand in authoritarian regimes. According to a recent report from Vanderbilt University’s the Future of Free Speech project, over the past decade, the number of countries limiting speech has far outnumbered those expanding it. Of the countries surveyed, the United States had the third-largest decline in support for free speech since the last study was published in 2021.

According to Jacob Mchangama, executive director of the Future of Free Speech, the decline in the U.S. represents fundamental shifts in values within a short period. While older Americans (ages 55 and over) have maintained relatively stable attitudes, showing only single-digit declines in most categories, the steep drops among younger cohorts raise profound questions about the future of free expression in America. College-educated Americans show another surprising shift. This group, traditionally associated with openness to diverse viewpoints, has markedly decreased its support for controversial speech since 2021.

The Free Speech study found that younger Americans are especially hesitant to defend speech that offends minority groups. Only 57% say such speech should be permitted, a result driven by those on the left. Tolerance for religiously offensive speech declined from 71% in 2021 to 57% this year, a result driven by those on the right.

In a recent YouGov poll, 25% of those who are very liberal agreed that violence is acceptable to achieve political goals, as did 17% of liberals, but only 6% of conservatives and 3% of those who are very conservative approved. Eleven percent of adults said that political violence can be justified, while 72% disagreed. By contrast, for those ages 18 to 29, 19% believe violence can be justified, and just 51% disagreed. Ironically, while 65% of all adults believe violence is justified for self-defense, just 60% of those ages 19 to 20 agree. Their views may be associated with sympathy for criminals as perceived victims of systemic oppression.

Justifying violence

In April, the nonpartisan Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University issued a report based on its extensive polling that concluded “widespread justiﬁcation for lethal violence — including assassination — among younger, highly online, and ideologically left-aligned users.” NCRI reported that these “attitudes are not fringe — they reﬂect an emergent assassination culture, grounded in far-left authoritarianism and increasingly normalized in digital discourse. Cyber-social platforms — particularly Bluesky — play a strong predictive role in amplifying this culture.”

More than 2,100 students were arrested during campus protests last year. Though demonstrations continue, they have been smaller in 2025 since the Trump administration’s crackdown on universities that have enabled anti-Semitic demonstrations.

The administration is pressuring universities to end anti-Semitism and take down barriers to free speech by revoking visas for foreign students who have endorsed Hamas or used violence to support Palestinian causes, and by suspending funding for leading universities that fail to defend the rights of Jewish students and faculty, including Columbia, Harvard, Brown, UCLA, and the University of Pennsylvania. At least 60 colleges and universities are being investigated by the Department of Education under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for their handling of anti-Semitic discrimination.

The Washington Postrecently reported that the Trump administration is developing a plan that would give an advantage for research grants to schools that pledge to adhere to administration policies on DEI and combating anti-Semitism. According to the Post, universities could be asked to affirm that admissions and hiring decisions are based on merit, that specified factors are taken into account when considering foreign student applications, and that college costs are not out of line with the value students receive.

Photo by Heather Diehl/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

While a requirement that universities adhere to the law to receive funding is sound, a requirement that they adopt discretionary policies preferred by the administration, or avoid criticizing its objectives, is not. Much as I would likely support the administration’s policies, the time will come when Democrats reclaim the presidency.

I don’t want them to impose a radical left agenda on universities as a condition of funding. Particularly because Democrats would encounter a sympathetic audience, their effectiveness would be far greater than any benefits that the Trump administration might achieve by suppressing dissent.

Numerous educators have been suspended or terminated for blaming Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Kirk or MAGA, or even openly endorsing Kirk’s murder. A Washington Post columnist was fired, Jimmy Kimmel was suspended for four nights, and investigations are proceeding against members of the military and federal agents who posted intemperate thoughts on X and Bluesky.

Root out the rot

I have written extensively on loyalty tests, cancel culture, and radical left bias at American universities, as well as the Biden administration’s collaboration with, and coercion of, social media platforms to silence conservative views. I opposed those actions not because of my agreement with those who were censored but rather because I support the First Amendment.

For many years, the rot on American campuses has spread as the radical left has pummeled and marginalized conservative voices. Under intensive indoctrination about safe spaces, intersectionality, and oppressor ideology, too many Americans under 35 have lost track of American exceptionalism and the beauty and meaning of free speech.

Our rights are under attack. The remedy for the excesses of the radical left is to restore an understanding of why America is a beacon of liberty — not to adopt the left’s worst impulses.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published on the American Mind.

Liberty cannot survive a culture that cheers assassins

When 20-year-old loner Thomas Matthew Crooks ascended a sloped roof in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and opened fire, he unleashed a torrent of clichés. Commentators and public figures avoided the term “assassination attempt,” even if the AR-15 was trained on the head of the Republican Party’s nominee for president. Instead, they condemned “political violence.”

“There is absolutely no place for political violence in our democracy,” former President Barack Obama said. One year later, he added the word “despicable” to his condemnation of the assassin who killed Charlie Kirk. That was an upgrade from two weeks prior, when he described the shooting at Annunciation Catholic School by a transgender person as merely “unnecessary.”

Those in power are not only failing to enforce order, but also excusing and even actively promoting the conditions that undermine a peaceful, stable, and orderly regime.

Anyone fluent in post-9/11 rhetoric knows that political violence is the domain of terrorists and lone wolf ideologues, whose manifestos will soon be unearthed by federal investigators, deciphered by the high priests of our therapeutic age, and debated by partisans on cable TV.

The attempt to reduce it to the mere atomized individual, however, is a modern novelty. From the American Revolution to the Civil War, from the 1863 draft riots to the 1968 MLK riots, from the spring of Rodney King to the summer of George Floyd, the United States has a long history of people resorting to violence to achieve political ends by way of the mob.

Since the January 6 riot that followed the 2020 election, the left has persistently attempted to paint the right as particularly prone to mob action. But as the online response to the murder of Charlie Kirk demonstrates — with thousands of leftists openly celebrating the gory, public assassination of a young father — the vitriol that drives mob violence is endemic to American political discourse and a perpetual threat to order.

America’s founders understood this all too well.

In August 1786, a violent insurrection ripped through the peaceful Massachusetts countryside. After the end of the Revolutionary War, many American soldiers found themselves caught in a vise, with debt collectors on one side and a government unable to make good on back pay on the other. A disgruntled former officer in the Continental Army named Daniel Shays led a violent rebellion aimed at breaking the vise at gunpoint.

“Commotions of this sort, like snow-balls, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them,” George Washington wrote in a letter, striking a serene tone in the face of an insurrection. James Madison was less forgiving: “In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob,” he wrote inFederalist 55. Inspired by Shays’ Rebellion and seeking to rein in the excesses of democracy, lawmakers called for the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787.

Our current moment of chaos

If the United States Constitution was borne out of political chaos, why does the current moment strike so many as distinctly perilous? Classical political philosophy offers us a clearer answer to this question than modern psychoanalysis. The most pointed debate among philosophers throughout the centuries has centered on how to prevent mob violence and ensure that most unnatural of things: political order.

In Plato’s “Republic," the work that stands at the headwaters of the Western tradition of political philosophy, Socrates argues that the only truly just society is one in which philosophers are kings and kings are philosophers. As a rule, democracy devolves into tyranny, for mob rule inevitably breeds impulsive citizens who become focused on petty pleasures. The resulting disorder eventually becomes so unbearable that a demagogue arises, promising to restore order and peace.

The classically educated founders picked up on these ideas — mediated through Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, and Montesquieu, among others — as they developed the structure of the new American government. The Constitution’s mixed government was explicitly designed to establish a political order that would take into consideration the sentiments and interests of the people without yielding to mob rule at the expense of order. The founders took for granted that powerful elites would necessarily be interested in upholding the regime from which they derived their authority.

Terror from the top

History has often seen disaffected elites stoke insurrections to defenestrate a ruling class that shut them out of public life. The famous case of the Catilinarian Conspiracy in late republican Rome, in which a disgruntled aristocrat named Catiline attempted to overthrow the republic during the consulship of Cicero, serves as a striking example.

In the 21st century, we face a different phenomenon: Those in power are not only failing to enforce order, but also excusing and even actively promoting the conditions that undermine a peaceful, stable, and orderly regime.

The points of erosion are numerous. The public cheerleading of assassinations can be dismissed as noise from the rabble, but it is more difficult to ignore the numerous calls from elites for civic conflagration. Newspapers are promoting historically dubious revisionism that undermines the moral legitimacy of the Constitution. Billionaire-backed prosecutors decline to prosecute violent crime.

For years, those in power at best ignored — and at worst encouraged — mob-driven chaos in American social life, resulting in declining trust in institutions, lowered expectations for basic public order, coarsened or altogether discarded social mores, and a general sense on all sides that Western civilization is breaking down.

Without a populace capable of self-control, liberty becomes impossible.

The United States has, of course, faced more robust political violence than what we are witnessing today. But even during the Civil War — brutal by any standard — a certain civility tended to obtain between the combatants. As Abraham Lincoln noted in his second inaugural address, “Both [sides] read the same Bible and pray to the same God.” Even in the midst of a horrific war, a shared sense of ultimate things somewhat tempered the disorder and destruction — and crucially promoted a semblance of reconciliation once the war ended.

Our modern disorder runs deeper. The shattering of fundamental shared assumptions about virtually anything leaves political opponents looking less like fellow citizens to be persuaded and more like enemies to be subdued.

Charlie Kirk, despite his relative political moderation and his persistent willingness to engage in attempts at persuasion, continues to be smeared by many as a “Nazi propagandist.” The willful refusal to distinguish between mostly run-of-the-mill American conservatism and the murderous foreign ideology known as National Socialism is telling. The implication is not subtle: If you disagree with me, you are my enemy — and I am justified in cheering your murder.

Fellow citizens who persistently view their political opponents as enemies and existential threats cannot long exist in a shared political community.

“Democracy is on the ballot,” the popular refrain goes, but rarely is democracy undermined by a single election. It is instead undermined by a gradual decline in public spiritedness and private virtue, as well as the loss of social trust and good faith necessary to avoid violence.

The chief prosecutors against institutional authority are not disaffected Catalines but the ruling class itself. This arrangement may work for a while, but both political theory and common sense suggest that it is volatile and unlikely to last for long.

The conditions of liberty

Political order, in general, requires a degree of virtue, public-spiritedness, and good will among the citizenry. James Madison in Federalist 55 remarks that, of all the possible permutations of government that have yet been conceived, republican government is uniquely dependent upon order and institutional legitimacy:

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.

In short, republican government requires citizens who can govern themselves, an antidote to the passions that precede mayhem and assassination. Without a populace capable of self-control, liberty becomes impossible. Under such conditions, the releasing of restraints never liberates — it only promotes mob-like behavior.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

The disorder of Shays’ Rebellion prompted the drafting of the Constitution, initiating what has sometimes been called an “experiment in ordered liberty.” That experiment was put to the test beginning in 1791 in Western Pennsylvania. The Whiskey Rebellion reached a crisis in Bower Hill, Pennsylvania, about 50 miles south of modern-day Butler, when a mob of 600 disgruntled residents laid siege to a federal tax collector. With the blessing of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and Federalistco-author John Jay, President George Washington assembled troops to put down the rebellion.

Washington wrote in a proclamation:

I have accordingly determined [to call the militia], feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit.

Washington left Philadelphia to march thousands of state militiamen into the rebel haven of Western Pennsylvania. The insurrectionists surrendered without firing a shot.

Our new era of political violence rolls on, with Charlie Kirk’s murder being only the latest and most prominent example. Our leaders assure us they will ride out into the field just as Washington once did. Whether they will use their presence and influence to suppress or encourage “so fatal a spirit” remains an open question.

Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.

The left needs fascists like vampires need blood

The post-Enlightenment West prides itself on having left religious myths behind. Sophisticated people scoff at demons, devils, and other silly superstitions. But ideas that once wore robes and halos simply change costumes. The idea of absolute evil re-emerges in secular form, and fascism plays the part of the devil in our political imagination.

Once a movement or person becomes the secular Satan, debate ends and violence begins to look like the only remedy. That is why leftists now call ordinary conservative positions “fascist” — they build the moral case for political violence.

Publicly branding an opponent ‘fascist’ with the expectation that it justifies violence should be as unacceptable as calling for a race-based lynching.

Consider the common thought experiment: “Would you travel back in time to kill baby Hitler?” Many answer yes. The image of a helpless infant collides with the scale of evil Adolf Hitler later embodied. For some, the calculus seems to justify murder when it prevents mass atrocity. Hitler stops being a human in that mental model; he becomes pure malignancy, and ordinary moral rules fall away.

That same process unfolded on American streets and campus quads over the past eight years. In 2017 Richard Spencer, a white nationalist, received a shove and a punch while speaking publicly. Spencer committed no violence that day. He threatened no one. He merely exercised his right to speak.

Still, many on the left cheered the assault. The assault collapsed an important boundary: If someone looks or sounds like a “Nazi,” is it now permissible to punch him? The Supreme Court long ago protected ugly speech, even the American Nazi Party’s right to march through a town with a large population of Holocaust survivors.

Anti-fascism as civic religion

But popular sentiment has shifted: Physical force against those denounced as fascists won moral approval from many progressives.

From insults to legal penalties to physical attacks, the escalation followed a familiar arc. Speech codes function as secular blasphemy laws. Labels like “bigot,” “racist,” or “transphobe” once carried distinct meanings; applied relentlessly, they blurred into a single category: heretic.

When those tags lost bite, the left raised the stakes. “White supremacist” replaced “racist” for positions like ending illegal immigration or opposing radical medical interventions for children. When that failed to stanch conservative influence, progressives reached for the final word: fascist.

That choice carries theological force. In secular modernity, defeating Hitler and the Nazis became a foundational myth. Anti-fascism assumed the status of a civic religion: a liturgical memory, a ritual cast of villains, and a duty of perpetual vigilance.

Paul Gottfried and other thinkers note how anti-fascism functions as a moral system after World War II. Comparing any enemy leader to Hitler became morally decisive. Nationalism, family veneration, and cultural continuity assumed guilt by association. The strong gods, once banished, left a moral vacuum that anti-fascism now fills.

Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

We’re all ‘fascists’ now?

Yet, fascism as a coherent political doctrine remains a historical phenomenon tied to early 20th-century Italy and, in some respects, to German national socialism. Stretching the term until it fits every conservative position strips it of analytical meaning. Calling something “fascist” should require attention to ideology, not impulse. Treating the word as a universal moral obliterator turns politics into theology. You cannot bargain with demons; you must exterminate them.

The very online left sells a modern variant: “ontological evil.” Call someone ontologically evil and you deny that person’s capacity for change. Evil becomes an essential property, not a series of choices. A man deemed ontologically evil stops being a political adversary and becomes a predator to be neutralized. That rhetoric creates a moral climate in which killing a political opponent appears not merely excusable but necessary.

We hear that rhetoric applied to mainstream conservatives practically every day. News figures, pundits, and Democratic politicians label President Trump and his supporters “fascists” or, at the very least, “semi-fascist.” After Charlie Kirk’s murder, some commentators continued to call him a fascist. Those who declared him so while he lay dead turned vile accusation into a license for dehumanization. The slogans scrawled by the shooter evoked the same anti-fascist catechism.

When likely presidential candidates like California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) brand ordinary conservative beliefs — national sovereignty, for example — as “fascist,” they signal to zealots that violence is not just allowed but morally mandated.

Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

That dynamic plays out in organization and funding as well. Networks of activists and groups that tolerate or endorse violent tactics receive resources and cover. Antifa and similar formations act as paramilitary foot soldiers who can intimidate, disrupt, and, when they choose, kill. They do so with the encouragement of influencers who frame opponents as existential threats. Label someone a fascist, and the path to extra-legal action opens.

Argument, not extermination

Americans must treat such rhetoric with the same moral opprobrium once reserved for lynch mobs. Publicly branding an opponent “fascist” with the expectation that it justifies violence should be as unacceptable as calling for a race-based lynching. When progressives use “fascist” to mark a target for death, they weaponize language to strip victims of human rights.

We must also restore analytic discipline. Accurate political language matters. Fascism, nazism, and other totalizing ideologies warrant denunciation and opposition, but we dilute our ability to resist genuine threats when we scream “fascist” at any conservative who supports border security or traditional marriage. If every disagreement becomes a call to arms, the political space collapses into a permanent state of evisceration disguised as moral clarity.

Finally, recognize what this rhetoric teaches would-be killers. If violence succeeds in silencing a critic, networks that cheer the act learn an obvious lesson: violence pays. The civic cost is enormous. The social fabric frays. The state loses its monopoly on legitimate force when vigilantes and ideologues decide they hold moral authority to execute enemies.

Treat accusations of “fascism” with the contempt they deserve. And make clear that no label grants anyone the right to take a life. If we let secular Satan labels justify bloodshed, we will learn in short order how quickly a republic can abandon its own laws and become hostage to its worst angels.

Gavin Newsom’s ‘fascist’ slur echoes in the streets

Over the weekend, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called White House adviser Stephen Miller a “FASCIST” — all caps — on X. His official press office account repeated the smear. Hours later, a horrific shooting struck a Latter-day Saints church service in Michigan. The two events were unrelated, but the juxtaposition raised an obvious question: Why inflame the public with reckless language at a moment when violence already runs high?

Meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi unsettled conservatives weeks earlier when she said she would prosecute “hate speech.” After decades of watching universities and the media brand nearly every Christian or conservative position as “hate,” many asked whether Bondi was simply turning the same weapon around. Should the right fight with the left’s tactics, or should it fight with righteousness?

We don’t need to wait for courts. The most powerful judgment comes from ordinary Americans who say, peacefully and firmly: Enough.

Bondi later clarified: She meant only speech that incites violence. That matters. But it also forces a deeper look at what counts as incitement under the First Amendment.

What the Supreme Court says

The leading case is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The Supreme Court ruled that government may not punish “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation” unless the speech is:

directed at inciting imminent lawless action,
intended to produce that violence, and
likely to succeed.

That’s why the classic “fire in a crowded theater” illustration works: If you yell “fire” without cause, and people are trampled, your “speech” helped cause the injuries.

But political and cultural debate is different. The court has given enormous latitude to speech in the public square, even when it is crude or inflammatory.

Where the line blurs

Two other principles complicate matters.

First, libel law: False statements that damage a reputation can lead to civil liability, though public figures face a higher burden (which is why so many crazy National Enquirer stories survive lawsuits).

Second, known risk: If a public figure keeps using rhetoric he has been warned may incite violence, and violence follows, he could face legal exposure.

That’s where Democrats like Newsom invite scrutiny. They lecture the public about “toning down rhetoric,” yet hurl the same charges themselves. At the attempted assassination of Charlie Kirk, one cartridge bore the phrase, “Hey fascist! Catch!” Democrats know this language fuels hatred. They keep using it anyway. At best, it is hypocrisy. At worst, it edges toward the standard they want to impose on conservatives.

The moral dimension

Hypocrisy is ugly, of course, but it isn’t illegal. Nor should it be. The First Amendment protects the right to be foolish, offensive, and wrong. The remedy for bad speech is not government censorship but the judgment of a free people.

Conservatives do not need to silence their opponents. They can simply withdraw support: Stop watching their shows, stop buying their books, stop supporting their advertisers, and stop voting for their candidates. Hypocrites can keep talking into the void.

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

And we can model a better way. Instead of trading insults, use arguments. Expose false assumptions and dismantle them in public view. That was Charlie Kirk’s example, and it is the model conservatives need to multiply.

Marxist professors may keep their jobs, but let them lecture to empty classrooms. Late-night hosts may keep sneering, but let them do so without advertisers. That is how a free people governs the public square — by choosing what to reward and what to ignore.

Discernment over censorship

Christians and conservatives should not wait for government to police “hate speech.” That path leads only to disappointment, or worse, to censorship of our own beliefs when power changes hands.

Instead, take practical steps:

Teach young people how to spot manipulative rhetoric and defeat it with arguments.
Withdraw money, time, and attention from those who abuse free speech.
Support institutions that foster open debate rather than silencing it.

If Democrats someday cross the Brandenburg line and face legal consequences, so much the better. But we don’t need to wait for courts. The most powerful judgment comes from ordinary Americans who say, peacefully and firmly: Enough.

Violence gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back

Last week, ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel told a big lie on national television. He claimed Charlie Kirk had been assassinated by a conservative MAGA supporter. This wasn’t a bad joke — it was a deliberate attempt to cover for left-wing violence and deceive millions of people.

After a campaign pressuring advertisers and affiliates, ABC suspended Kimmel, saying he wouldn’t immediately return to the air. Progressives screamed about “cancel culture” and circulated petitions, apparently more concerned about a millionaire losing his low-rated show than about a murdered father.

The right, paralyzed by fear of bad press, has given the left a free pass. That timidity has only encouraged more bloodshed.

Then came the threats. Violent warnings poured into ABC affiliates, culminating in a leftist shooting up a station in Sacramento. Shortly afterward, ABC announced that Kimmel would return to the air. The lesson for the left was simple: Violence and terrorism work.

The Trump moment

When Donald Trump was shot on stage in Butler, Pennsylvania, last year, the entire world held its breath. His supporters didn’t flee; they froze, waiting to see if their leader had been killed. If a leftist assassin had succeeded, civil war was on the table. Then Trump stood and raised a defiant fist, and the nation exhaled. Not only because he had survived, but because the darkest path had been narrowly avoided.

That moment should have been a turning point. Trump entered office with energy, issuing a flurry of executive orders. But he never confronted the left-wing groups and the institutions that had normalized violence. He wanted a stable economy and secure borders, but left-wing radicals continued to act as if they had a special right to political violence. By letting them get away with assassination attempts and street terror, Trump ensured that another wave was inevitable.

Excuses and celebrations

After Kirk’s assassination on Sept. 10, some progressives mouthed words about lowering the temperature. Almost all of them hedged by smearing the victim or blaming “both sides.” Meanwhile, a disturbingly large faction openly celebrated the murder. Their message was clear: They would never abandon violence as long as it kept paying dividends.

Even Kimmel’s brief firing — for telling a malicious lie that threatened ABC’s broadcast license — was more than they could tolerate. For perspective: When an unknown addict overdosed while in police custody, the left torched American cities for months. In contrast, a prominent conservative was assassinated, and the only cost extracted from the left was one failing talk show host and some TikTok blabbermouths losing their jobs. Even that tiny price triggered outrage.

Violence pays

When FCC Chair Brendan Carr flagged Kimmel’s violation, progressives shrieked about “fascism” and “the end of free speech.” The irony was grotesque: Kirk had just been killed for exercising his free speech.

Meanwhile, major Democrats piled on. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) smeared Kirk’s character before he was buried. Keith Olbermann threatened to kill CNN commentator Scott Jennings before issuing a flimsy apology. Left-wing influencers rushed to declare allegiance to Antifa, a group with a long record of violence. Whatever pretense of unity had existed collapsed in less than 24 hours.

Soon threats flooded ABC affiliates. One man — a former teachers’ union lawyer! — even sprayed bullets into a station window. That was enough for Sinclair Media, ABC’s largest affiliate group, to pull a planned Kirk tribute and restore late-night programming. ABC then confirmed that Kimmel himself would return in that slot. The terrorists had won.

A partial retreat

Credit where due: After another wave of pressure, Sinclair and Nexstar, another major affiliate group, refused to air Kimmel until he apologized. Together they represent about 70 of ABC’s 250 affiliates, including major markets such as Washington, Seattle, and Portland. That is significant — but still insufficient.

Reports indicate that Kimmel could have resolved the issue early simply by apologizing. He refused. He bet that his Hollywood allies and violent extremists would clear a path for his return. He was right.

Photo by Randy Holmes/Disney via Getty Images

Incentives matter

Every parent knows what happens if you don’t punish bad behavior: It repeats and often escalates. The same holds true in politics. When the left sees it can assault conservative speakers, burn cities, threaten opponents, shoot presidents, assassinate leaders, and face no serious consequences, it learns the obvious lesson: Violence works.