He posted and the internet exploded — Rep. Clay Higgins vowed to “cancel with extreme prejudice” anyone who mocked Charlie Kirk’s killing online, calling for lifetime platform bans, business blacklists, revoked licenses and even de-schooling.
A Republican congressman furious at social-media posts responding to Charlie Kirk’s fatal shooting has proposed an extraordinarily sweeping set of punishments for people who “belittled” the tragedy. Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) took to X on Thursday to promise he would “use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”
Andrew Harnik / Getty Images
Higgins argued that any account “running their mouth with their smartass hatred, celebrating the heinous murder of that beautiful young man” should be removed — permanently. He said users who posted such comments must be “banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER.”
Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images
But Higgins pressed further than social-media bans. “I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting,” he wrote, saying those businesses should be aggressively blacklisted. He demanded that offenders be expelled from every school they attend and have their driver’s licences revoked. “I’m basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination,” he declared.
Observers quickly noted the irony: Charlie Kirk himself has previously criticised social-media bans. Earlier this year Kirk argued that people should be allowed to say outrageous things online — a position that makes Higgins’ proposed crackdown appear at odds with what Kirk once defended.
HuffPost reached out to Higgins’ office for comment but had not received an immediate reply.
Unsurprisingly, many readers and free-speech advocates pushed back against Higgins’ approach, arguing that stripping people of speech and livelihoods in response to offensive — however hateful — online remarks would clash with constitutional protections. Social media users captured a range of responses, from anger to bemused disbelief, as people questioned whether punishing speech in this sweeping way is legally or morally defensible.
