‘The idea of “hate speech” is poisonous’

The assassination of Charlie Kirk last month exposed the fragility of free speech across the Western world. This violent attempt to extinguish his conservative views has been met with a censorious response from his allies on the right. Leading figures in the Trump administration have demanded the cancellation and firing of those who celebrated Kirk’s murder. Worse, US attorney general Pam Bondi has demanded prosecutions for ‘hate speech’, even though this would violate America’s First Amendment, which protects even hateful, abhorrent speech from government interference.

Lionel Shriver – novelist, journalist and author of Mania – warns against this new fashion for ‘hate speech’ codes on the right. She says Britain, where 30 people are arrested every day for causing offence online, proves this is a dangerous path to go down. She returned as a guest to The Brendan O’Neill Show to discuss all this and more. You can watch the full conversation here.

Brendan O’Neill: What do you make of the response to Charlie Kirk’s recent assassination?

Lionel Shriver: I have argued that, in relation to the assassination itself, we may be in danger of over-interpreting it. There’s this weird competition going on right now in the media, regarding whether the left or the right is more violent. This is a rather fruitless exercise. I gather that if you just go by sheer fatalities, the right has probably racked up more. But I find the contest a little pointless, and appreciate the politicians who simply denounce political violence regardless of its purpose. Let’s remember that the person behind the shooting is a 22-year-old kid who was radicalised online, as is becoming increasingly common. We shouldn’t give him the power to determine the nature of reality in the United States in 2025.

I do think that the aftermath of the shooting has been informative, especially on the far left. It’s disheartening to see all these people who find joking about the situation edgy and ghoulishly stimulating. I am, however, also discouraged by the Trump administration’s response. Pam Bondi announced publicly that hate speech is not covered by the First Amendment. This is a big gaffe – she’s the head of law enforcement in the federal government, and she didn’t know that the Supreme Court has very specifically ruled that hate speech is in the eye of the beholder. It is most decidedly covered by the First Amendment, and it’s one of the things that sets the US in the UK apart on free-speech issues.

O’Neill: There does seem to be a striking amount of people in everyday life – academics, nurses, teachers – who were openly celebrating Kirk’s death. Do you think that tells us anything?

Shriver: We’re seeing a hardening and a barbarism on the left that has reared its ugly head before. The response to Luigi Mangione’s assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO was equally gross, cold and uncalled for. Mangione still appears to be a kind of left-wing icon. All of this points to a flirtation with political violence on the left that isn’t necessarily all talk. I wouldn’t take it too seriously, but I wouldn’t ignore it either.

I especially noticed how morally unhinged the fringes of the left were in response to 7 October. It wouldn’t have been hard to support Palestinian rights, nor to be critical of Israel, without endorsing Hamas or writing off what was the most grotesque exercise of violence I can recall within my lifetime as ‘overblown’ or ‘fake’. I mean, what is wrong with the left? It’s part of this Manichaean thinking: ‘You’re either with us or against us.’

O’Neill: Can Trump be trusted on free speech?

Shriver: I don’t want to make boring summaries about Trump’s character, but I think this is an instance where his lack of principle was shown – and it has real consequences. His own administration doesn’t seem to understand that if you support free speech, then you support the right of people to say very unpleasant things, even about the murder of someone on your side. The whole concept of hate speech is a left-wing concept, and it is poisonous. It has proved poisonous in the UK especially, in which any number of opinions can now be considered ‘hateful’. It’s a path the United States definitely does not want to go down, and any reputable conservative has no business using that expression.

O’Neill: Where does free speech go from here?

Shriver: We have to return to the principle itself, which is neither ‘right’ nor ‘left’. It’s a non-partisan issue. One of the major problems in the UK, since there is no written constitution, is that there is a constant influx of legislation to restrict speech, but no legislation to defend it. Where is the law that says you have a right to express your opinion? Nowhere. So when new ones like the Human Rights Act get passed, they’re about shutting you up. If Reform UK gets into power, I would argue one of its most pressing jobs will be to stick up for the majority of people who just want to be able to say what they think.

Here in New York, I meet people who never really expressed an interest in Britain beyond the queen before. Now, they’re suddenly coming to me and asking, ‘What’s going on in the UK? What’s up with the free speech thing?’ Graham Linehan’s arrest has penetrated Americans’ indifference to everything British, and they’re truly disturbed. Those who travel have started thinking: ‘That could be me.’ The idea of being arrested for a tweet is so far-fetched to the American mind that it seems like a joke. It would be funny if it weren’t real.

Lionel Shriver was talking to Brendan O’Neill. Watch the full conversation below: