There’s a big difference between firing someone, like a teacher, for believing children shouldn’t undergo trans surgery and firing a teacher who celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk. Glenn Beck explains why the latter is NOT “cancel culture.”
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: I got an email from somebody that says, Glenn, in the wake of Charlie's assassination, dozens of teachers, professors and professionals are being suspended or fired for mocking, or even celebrating Charlie Kirk's death.
Critics say conservatives are now being hypocritical because you oppose cancel culture. But is this the same as rose an losing her job over a crude joke. Or is it celebrating murder, and that's something more serious?
For many, this isn't about cancellation it's about trust. If a teacher is entrusted with children or a doctor entrusted with patients, publicly celebrates political violence, have they not yet disqualified themselves from those roles? Words matter. But cheering a death is an action. Is there any consequence for this? Yes. There is.
So let's have that conversation here for a second.
Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?
The answer to that is clearly no.
I mean, we've seen teachers and pastors and doctors and ordinary citizens lose their job now, just for saying they don't believe children under 18 should undergo transgender surgeries. Okay? Lost their job. Chased out.
That opinion, whether you agree or disagree is a moral and medical judgment.
And it is a matter of policy debate. It is speech in the public square.
I have a right to say, you're mutilating children. Okay. You have a right to say, no. We're not. This is the best practices. And then we can get into the silences of it. And we don't shout down the other side.
Okay? Now, on the other hand, you have Charlie Kirk's assassination. And we've seen teachers and professors go online and be celebrate.
Not criticize. Not argue policy. But celebrate that someone was murdered.
Some have gone so far and said, it's not a tragedy. It's a victory. Somebody else, another professor said, you reap what you sow.
Well, let me ask you: Are these two categories of free speech the same?
No! They're not.
Here's the difference. To say, I believe children should not be allowed to have gender surgeries, before 18. That is an attempt, right or wrong. It doesn't matter which side you are.
That is an attempt to protect life. Protect children. And guide society.
It's entering the debate about the role of medicine. The right of parents. And the boundaries of childhood. That's what that is about. To say Charlie Kirk's assassination is a good thing, that's not a debate. That's not even an idea. That's rejoicing in violence. It's glorifying death.
There's no place in a civil society for that kind of stuff. There's not. And it's a difference that actually matters.
You know, our Founders fought for free speech because they believed as Jefferson said, that air can be tolerated where truth is left free to combat it.
So I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, at all. I don't think you do either. I hope you don't. Otherwise, you should go back to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Error can be tolerated where truth is left to be free to combat it.
But when speech shifts from debating ideas to celebrating death, doesn't that cease to be the pursuit of truth and instead, just become a glorification of evil?
I know where I stand on that one. Where do you stand?
I mean, if you go back and you look at history, in colonial matter -- in colonial America, if you were to go against the parliament and against the king, those words were dangerous. They were called treason. But they were whys. They were arguments about liberty and taxation and the rights of man.
And the Founders risked their lives against the dictator to say those things.
Now, compare that to France in 1793.
You Thomas Paine, one of or -- one of our founder kind of. On the edges of our founders.
He thought that what was happening in France is exactly like the American Revolution.
Washington -- no. It wasn't.
There the crowds. They didn't gather to argue. Okay? They argued to cheer the guillotine they didn't want the battle of ideas.
They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.
And roll they did. You know, until the people who were screaming for the heads to roll, shouted for blood, found that their own heads were rolling.
Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.
Think of Rome.
Cicero begged his countrymen to preserve the republic through reason, law, and debate. Then what happened?
The mob started cheering assassinations.
They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.
They were being fed to the lions.
And the republic fell into empire.
And liberty was lost!
Okay. So now let me bring this back to Charlie Kirk here for a second.
If there's a professor that says, I don't believe children should have surgeries before adulthood, is that cancel culture, when they're fired?
Yes! Yes, it is.
Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.
However imperfect, it is speech meant to protect children, not to harm them. You also cannot be fired for saying, I disagree with that.
If you are telling, I disagree with that. And I will do anything to shut you down including assassination! Well, then, that's a different story.
What I teacher says, I'm glad Charlie Kirk is dead, is that cancel culture, if they're fired?
Or is that just society saying, you know, I don't think I can trust my kid to -- to that guy.
Or that woman.
I know, that's not an enlightening mind.
Somebody who delights in political murder.
I don't want them around my children! Scripture weighs in here too.
Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Matthew.
What does it reveal about the heart of a teacher who celebrates assassination?
To me, you go back to Scripture. Whoa unto them that call good evil -- evil good and good evil.
A society that will shrug on speech like this, say society that has lost its moral compass.
And I believe we still have a moral compass.
Now, our free speech law doesn't protect both. Absolutely. Under law. Absolutely.
Neither one of them should go to jail.
Neither should be silenced by the state.
But does trust survive both?
Can a parent trust their child to a teacher who is celebrating death?
I think no. I don't think a teacher can be trusted if they think that the children that it's right for children to see strippers in first grade!
I'm sorry. It's beyond reason. You should not be around my children!
But you shouldn't go to jail for that. Don't we, as a society have a right to demand virtue, in positions of authority?
Yes.
But the political class and honestly, the educational class, does everything they can to say, that doesn't matter.
But it does. And we're seeing it now. The line between cancel and culture, the -- the cancellation of people, and the accountability of people in our culture, it's not easy.
Except here. I think it is easy.
Cancel culture is about challenging the orthodoxy. Opinions about faith, morality, biology.
Accountability comes when speech reveals somebody's heart.
Accountability comes when you're like, you are a monster! You are celebrating violence. You're mocking life itself. One is an argument. The other is an abandonment of humanity. The Constitution, so you understand, protects both.
But we as a culture can decide, what kind of voices would shape our children? Heal our sick. Lead our communities?
I'm sorry, if you're in a position of trust, I think it's absolutely right for the culture to say, no!
No. You should not -- because this is not policy debate. This is celebrating death.
You know, our Founders gave us liberty.
And, you know, the big thing was, can you keep it?
Well, how do you keep it? Virtue. Virtue.
Liberty without virtue is suicide!
So if anybody is making this case to you, that this is cancel culture. I just want you to ask them this question.
Which do you want to defend?
Cancel culture that silences debate. Or a culture that still knows the difference between debating ideas and celebrating death.
Which one?
