“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
A phrase often attributed to Voltaire.
On September 10, 2025, conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and close ally of Donald Trump, was shot dead while speaking at Utah Valley University. This tragic event is a stark reminder that freedom of expression can collide with political violence. But it also reveals the deep divide between the American and French legal traditions regarding freedom of speech.
In the United States, the First Amendment shields almost all forms of speech, even those that offend, stigmatize, or shock. According to the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), restrictions are only allowed in very narrow circumstances:
Thus, Charlie Kirk’s often fiery rhetoric against Democrats, federal institutions, immigration, or certain minorities remained legally protected, as long as it did not amount to an explicit call to imminent violence.
In France, freedom of expression (Article 11 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen) is also a constitutional right. Yet it is strictly regulated by the French Press Law of July 29, 1881, which establishes multiple criminal offenses.
Comparable statements to those made by Charlie Kirk could have fallen under:
Unlike the U.S., where controversial speech is tolerated as part of democratic pluralism, French law penalizes such expressions when they infringe upon the dignity of individuals or threaten social cohesion.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a tragic reminder of the risks surrounding public discourse. But it also underscores two irreconcilable philosophies:
Two worlds separate us, yet one question remains: how far should we defend the freedom to speak when speech itself becomes a source of division?
