The fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10 was a critical moment for America. It was an awful event that brought out the worst in humanity. On social media, many people reacted ghoulishly, going so far as to cheer his death. Some people are being fired or disciplined for their comments.

The latest casualty of this toxic discourse appears to be "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" The Disney-owned ABC network said on Sept. 17 that it will indefinitely stop airing the show after comments the late-night host made about Kirk. Unfortunately, it appears Disney might have made the decision due to pressure from the head of the Federal Communications Commission, but that's not entirely clear.

This is what Kimmel said during a recent opening monologue on his show: "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it."

I'm sure President Donald Trump will have something to say about Kimmel's show. The Trump administration had already promised to crack down on people expressing their grim views online.

In an interview with Katie Miller on her podcast Sept. 15, Attorney General Pam Bondi responded to this awful trend by talking about "hate speech" and what law enforcement will do about it.

"There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society," Bondi said. "We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."

Conservatives online have disagreed with the attorney general's statement. So do I.

I was angry, too, watching people respond to Kirk's assassination with glee, but the Trump administration and other conservative leaders must be careful that, in our anger, we do not overreact and weaponize the federal government to curtail the free speech rights of those with whom we disagree. Not only does this contradict what Kirk stood for, but it also weakens the authority of the First Amendment.

We either care about the First Amendment or we don't

This started when workers began losing jobs for posting cruel or insensitive comments about Kirk's death. Some workers have learned firsthand that there are limits to free speech when it comes to private companies. One could say they are in the "find out" stage of their own political discourse.

Nasdaq fired an employee on Sept. 12 for social media posts related to Kirk's shooting. "Nasdaq has a zero-tolerance policy toward violence and any commentary that condones or celebrates violence," the company said on X.

The Joe Burrow Foundation, cofounded by Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow, posted a statement on its website saying it had "terminated an advisory board member that made inappropriate remarks in light of recent events."

The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that Hamilton County Municipal Judge Ted Berry is no longer listed as a board member after allegedly making celebratory comments on social media about the assassination of Kirk, including, “How’s he feel about gun violence & gun control in Hell, now?”

Ohio Rep. Adam Mathews called for Judge Berry's resignation.

I believe that it is well within a company's legal rights to determine if an employee's code of conduct matches the company's vision and values and act accordingly. Although, of course, there are laws and protections for workers that should be followed.

The First Amendment does not protect all speech from consequences any more than the Second Amendment protects everyone who brandishes a firearm. The First Amendment simply dictates that Congress can't make laws that allow the government to prohibit speech.

Guess who can? Private employers. To me, employers firing workers is not so much a free speech issue as it is a sign that employers care how their businesses are seen.

Trump administration must tread lightly on free speech

Even still, it is wrong for Bondi to use her platform as the attorney general to proclaim that she will target Americans for their "hate speech." There is no mention of hate speech in the First Amendment, and the government should not target it.

After an outcry from conservatives, Bondi posted a clarification Sept. 16 of what she meant: "You cannot call for someone’s murder. You cannot swat a Member of Congress. You cannot dox a conservative family and think it will be brushed off as 'free speech.' These acts are punishable crimes, and every single threat will be met with the full force of the law. Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent, but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence."

In a recent Fox News interview, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said that "the power of law enforcement under President Trump's leadership will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, take away your power, and if you have broken the law, to take away your freedom."

I understand that the Trump administration is angry. It is heinous to see leftists applaud the death of an incredible man on social media. It is wrong, indecent and cowardly, but it is not illegal.

Alliance Defending Freedom CEO Kristen Waggoner represented Jack Phillips, the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In that 2018 landmark free speech case, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Phillips' favor, saying that the commission had been hostile toward Phillips' religious beliefs, violating his free exercise rights.

Waggoner recently posted on X that hate speech "is an illegitimate category that simply cannot coexist with the First Amendment’s robust free speech protections. The remedy for bad speech ‒ even ugly and hateful speech ‒ is good speech. The remedy for unlawful conduct (i.e., conspiring to commit violence or threatening violence), is to enforce existing laws against it. One of the best ways to honor Charlie Kirk’s legacy is to firmly hold the line on free speech as he did."

I couldn't agree more. The Trump administration should target unlawful conduct, such as conspiring to assassinate, but the White House cannot give in to the desire to target cruel speech, whether out of principle or vengeance. Even if officials feel that such speech tarnishes Kirk or his legacy.

Kirk championed all speech, whether that of confused college kids or "South Park" creators mocking him in a recent episode that Comedy Central pulled after his death. In fact, he laughed about that "South Park" episode in July.

The best way to uphold Kirk's legacy is to continue the work he started, by being free speech warriors and doing what the Turning Point USA cofounder did nationwide, dare the dissenters to "Prove Me Wrong."

Nicole Russell is a columnist at USA TODAY and a mother of four who lives in Texas. Contact her at nrussell@gannett.com and follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @russell_nm. Sign up for her weekly newsletter, The Right Track.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump, Bondi tarnish Charlie Kirk's legacy by targeting 'hate speech' | Opinion

Reporting by Nicole Russell, USA TODAY / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect