"The ACLU of Rhode Island strongly condemns political violence, as it erodes and chills the free and democratic exchange of ideas underlying the protections of the First Amendment. At the same time, stifling controversial, and even offensive, speech in response to that violence also erodes those principles.
The investigation of the comments made by a Barrington high school teacher on his own time and in his personal capacity in response to the killing of Charlie Kirk highlight the danger of stifling speech. While speech directly intended to provoke violence is not protected by the First Amendment, the ability to speak freely in one’s private capacity about public issues — including the right to criticize, challenge, and denounce opposing political views, however crudely — must be safeguarded, especially when that speech is considered unpopular or provocative. Otherwise, everybody’s free speech is at risk, dependent on the political tides.
The controversy in Barrington is not an isolated incident. It reflects a disturbing national trend of speech suppression and an increasing use of government power to silence opposing beliefs and voices.
The ACLU has a long history of defending free speech — not just when it’s easy or agreeable, but also when it’s difficult and divisive. Core political speech must be defended most fiercely when it is controversial, because that is precisely when it is most at risk."