Althouse: "A university dedicated to free thought should know better. The First Amendment draws a clear line..."

April 22, 2025

"A university dedicated to free thought should know better. The First Amendment draws a clear line..."

"... between unprotected 'true threats' and core political speech. Speech is only a true threat when it demonstrates a serious, specific, and imminent intent to commit unlawful violence against a particular individual or group. That’s a high bar — and for good reason. It’s meant to protect public debate, especially about uncomfortable topics. Advocacy for violence, no matter how disturbing, remains protected unless it crosses that line. Decker’s essay never comes close. It’s abstract, hypothetical, and lacks any indication of intent to commit violence. Asking about the moral propriety of force is philosophy, not a true threat...."

From "George Mason University calls cops on student for article criticizing Trump/GMU student Nicholas Decker’s Substack essay 'When Must We Kill Them?' earned him a visit from the Secret Service" (FIRE).

56 comments:

mccullough said...: There’s no clear line between a threat and protected speech.; 4/22/25, 3:55 PM
Sebastian said...: "It’s abstract, hypothetical, and lacks any indication of intent to commit violence." I guess I reluctantly agree with FIRE, but does it lack "any" indication? How "hypothetical" is when "must" we?; 4/22/25, 3:58 PM
Bob B said...: Although a big fan of FIRE, I’m with the university here.; 4/22/25, 4:07 PM
Chris-2-4 said...: It can be protected speech and still warrant a "visit" from the Secret Service, can it not?; 4/22/25, 4:14 PM
mccullough said...: GMU is not dedicated to free thought.

FIRE is a grift; 4/22/25, 4:22 PM
Luke Lea said...: Free speech is for public spaces, not on college campuses. We should get that distinction out of the way first of all. Too many are failing to do so.

In this particular case, unless "Them" means Trump supporters, the author was probably within his rights, even on campus, however deluded he happens to be.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer. What does Ann think?; 4/22/25, 4:26 PM
Dave Begley said...: GMU student, "it has subjected us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and has transported us beyond seas to be imprisoned for pretended offenses. It has scorned the orders of our courts, and threatens to alter fundamentally our form of government. It has pardoned its thugs, and extorted the lawyers who defended its opponents.

If these actions become normal, the government could arrest anyone and deport them to prison in a foreign land, without hope of redress, for no reason. It is nothing less than the total abdication of rule of law in this country. There is no guard or protection against it. If this theory prevails, then it is the end of America as a free nation."

This is not in the least bit factually accurate.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why people can't draw factual distinctions. Trump pulled off the streets illegal aliens who are gang members. They invaded the US and threaten our safety. He's not rounding up the students at GMU.

That's why Trump needs to change the conversation and get this matter out of the courts. Suspend the writ of habeas corpus as members of MS-13 and TdeA for purposes of the Alien Enemies Act. Get these people out of the country now!; 4/22/25, 4:28 PM
Dave Begley said...: "The sacrifice of a hero is insufficient to save our nation, and a gust of wind on a summer day would not have saved us."

GMU student wishes that the Butler shooter would have killed Trump. That's obvious.; 4/22/25, 4:31 PM
mccullough said...: Calling the cops or the Secret Service showing up isn’t a violation of this twerps First Amendment Rights.

This is FIRE’s fundraising grift.; 4/22/25, 4:31 PM
Rob C said...: Someone should ask that rodeo clown in the Obama mask what he thinks about this.; 4/22/25, 4:32 PM
Mr. T. said...: "Fighting words" as well as true threats are NOT protected speech. FIRE knows this better than anyone which is frightening since that means they are being purposely obtuse.

Used to be a big supporter of FIRE until they became obsessed with defending pedophilia and terrorism.; 4/22/25, 4:32 PM
Dave Begley said...: "If the present administration wills it, it could sweep away the courts, it could sweep away democracy, and it could sweep away freedom. "

Not possible. Guy has been listening to MSNBC too much.; 4/22/25, 4:33 PM
john mosby said...: Some loosely related reactions:

Anyone can be asked for a consensual interview. If he doesn’t consent, the cops go away. Meanwhile, the USSS can look at the kid’s other open-source postings, police records, etc, to paint a picture of whether he poses a threat - which is more important than whether he uttered a true threat.

I read the kid’s Substack. He does say the quiet part out loud:

“ Violence only makes sense as part of coordinated strategy. This is why protests are important – not as a way of changing the present administration’s actions, but as a way to coordinate a group.”

Both MAGAs and Antifas believe that. I’ve pointed out in comments here that part of the reason Trump did campaign rallies in blue cities was to show he can mobilize supporters anywhere, in case the Biden regime went full Egypt on him.

Finally, imagine if the “Them” in “When Must We Kill Them?” were urban yewts. FIRE, to their credit, would still support the kid, but the MSM would have the article scrolling in the crawler 24/7.

JSM; 4/22/25, 4:34 PM
Dave Begley said...: "We will have to do the right thing. We will have to prepare ourselves to die."

One of the most laughable Leftist slogans is, "Do the right thing!"

The "right" thing depends upon your views.

This GMU student is a dope.; 4/22/25, 4:36 PM
Enigma said...: Other than when the Secret Service turned a blind eye to numerous Trump threats, this has been a routine practice. Back when I was in school, a student was quoted saying they wanted to "k*ll the President" in the school newspaper. The SS interviewed the student, and it became content for the next edition.; 4/22/25, 4:39 PM
Wince said...: FIRE says...
Speech is only a true threat when it demonstrates a serious, specific, and imminent intent to commit unlawful violence against a particular individual or group. Decker’s essay never comes close. It’s abstract, hypothetical, and lacks any indication of intent to commit violence. Asking about the moral propriety of force is philosophy, not a true threat.

I'd quibble with FIRE's effusive assertion that Decker's piece is "abstract, hypothetical, and lacks any indication of intent to commit violence."

FIRE does its readers a pedagogical disservice by saying Decker's manifesto "never comes close" to a threat, intimidation or intent to create fear and influence political or social outcomes.

Decker said...
If the present administration chooses this course, then the questions of the day can be settled not with legislation, but with blood and iron. In short, we must decide when we must kill them. None of us wish for war, but if the present administration wishes to destroy the nation I would accept war rather than see it perish. I hope that you would choose the same.

And Decker's manifesto does read like an invitation to organize a conspiracy to commit same.

Violence only makes sense as part of coordinated strategy. This is why protests are important – not as a way of changing the present administration’s actions, but as a way to coordinate a group.; 4/22/25, 4:46 PM
mccullough said...: There is no imminent intent requirement for a threat.

Imminent is required for incitement.; 4/22/25, 4:58 PM
RCOCEAN II said...: Good for the University. Oh, lets just a mind experiment about when it would be OK to assasinate the sitting POTUS. Y'know the guy - who just got shot less a year ago. What if he'd published a "provocative" essay about when it was OK to assassinate Governor Shapiro or the College President or his next door neighbor?

would everyone be going "My that theoretical discussion of killing your wife, sure is challenging my brain cells!".; 4/22/25, 4:59 PM
RCOCEAN II said...: And its nice that "FIRE" is about there in arms about this, but given that almost every private university claims to be exempt from the 1st admendment, and that "Hate Speech" > Academic Freedom, I'm not going to die on this hill. I think was a clever way to argue for violence against Trump, and the University didn't want to be burned if the author turned out to be an assassian.; 4/22/25, 5:03 PM
Jamie said...: I am also not a lawyer, but doesn't the word "when" potentially move this thing into a different realm? If he'd called his piece, "Do/Will we have to kill them?" or "Under what circumstances would we have to kill them?" then he'd clearly be exploring a hypothetical. (Or, you know, a fantasy, but no law against that.)

But "when" implies strongly that the decision has been made and it's down to the timing.; 4/22/25, 5:06 PM
Jupiter said...: I tend to agree with FIRE's assessment of the essay. It seems to be more of a meditation on the morality of political violence than any sort of plan or recommendation to commit political violence. But there are a couple points to be considered;
1 - If the SS gets a call about a threat, it is not unreasonable for them to try to interview the persons involved. They're not in the lit-crit business.
2 - If a university, or even a zoo, gets the idea that one of their inmates is dangerous, they can't be faulted for taking such steps as suggest themselves to avert that danger.

Thus, the question becomes, Does the student have a right to publish such a document without fear of being reported to the SS by the University? Now, if it were a zoo, I'd say no. Zoos will report what they want to report, and if you don't like it you can stay home, unless you are an exhibit. But a University may fall under a different standard.; 4/22/25, 5:11 PM
Lucien said...: The article is obviously protected speech, but the university has not taken action against the author. But: I wonder if those in favor of using “red flag” laws to confiscate firearms would approve of doing so in this case.

And remember the brilliant jurists in Colorado who wanted to bar Trump from the 2024 ballot because of a political speech he gave at a political rally, while President, in which he called on people to go to the Capitol for a “peaceful and patriotic protest”.; 4/22/25, 5:17 PM
Jupiter said...: It is rather encouraging to see that at least some universities are ready to truckle to anyone in a position to withhold funding. Glad to see they weren't really serious about all that Commie DEI BS.; 4/22/25, 5:17 PM
lonejustice said...: When I was in college and President Regan was making a visit to a nearby city, some bozos on the Left were handing out buttons and flyers that said "Shoot Bush First." That got the attention of the Secret Service, and rightly so. But this opinion piece by the student at GMU hardly rises to that level. I am totally on FIRE's side on this one. People are increasingly becoming afraid of the First Amendment.; 4/22/25, 5:18 PM
bagoh20 said...: "mccullough said...
There’s no clear line between a threat and protected speech."
Exactly. That's the rub.
I support FIRE for their work. I even have them in my will, but although this is protected speech, it does not take much creativity to fashion messages that pretend to be hypothetical and indirect while still calling people to violence. That's pretty much there every time a revolution, as an isolated act or a large conflagration breaks into violence. When you step over that line you should be ready to take the very serious risks of a true revolutionary. That's one small step for an opinion, one giant leap for a life, including yours.; 4/22/25, 5:47 PM
Big Mike said...: So “when must we kill them” “lacks any indication of intent to commit violence”? Interesting interpretation.; 4/22/25, 5:52 PM
Aggie said...: I'm not sure why FIRE thought they had a role here. GMU did the right thing though, in my view. The SS considered the material, weighed the risks, and took further action - well within their remit.

The student wrote the essay and may have been making an honest effort, or pushing limits, or playing games.

In any case, Free Speech has not been impinged. And nothing about Free Speech comes with a guarantee to be without consequences. It's a grown-up world, isn't it?

Tempest in a teapot. Is this the student that got kicked out of his apartment because of the implied violence in the essay? Consequences.; 4/22/25, 5:52 PM
Hassayamper said...: I agree with FIRE. Hypothetical, protected speech, exploring where the boundary lies between things that can be fixed without violence, and things that can't. Not altogether different from many of the writings of the Founding Fathers. The kid's a nasty little piece of shit who deserves a visit from the Secret Service, but he's within his rights.

I certainly approve of all politicians being kept permanently well aware of the fact that we have the numbers and weapons and determination necessary to drag them from their luxurious offices as a mob, horsewhip them without mercy, and hang them from a stout oak tree-- IF they get too big for their britches and decide to try to rule without the consent of the governed.

I believe it was Chesterton who said it is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are ever hanged.; 4/22/25, 5:54 PM
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...: Aggie said...

I'm not sure why FIRE thought they had a role here.

You got to see it from FIRE's point of view. If colleges stop tolerating stuff like threatening a sitting President and his supporters and starts disciplining them, that doesn't do much for FIRE's bottom line.; 4/22/25, 6:01 PM
Aggie said...: I'll say this as well: In my life I've met with men that served on Presidential details. The SS are very, very good at getting to know all about you when they conduct an interview. They are extremely proficient with this skill - so earning yourself a personal interview, and having it conclude in a way such as this, is not an insignificant milestone. This could easily be an example of the process, working as it is intended. It is not difficult to see how this article's rather sly rhetoric about violence was flagged as a potential threat by GMU, and the threat was explored and resolved by the SS.; 4/22/25, 6:02 PM
bagoh20 said...: It would be a dereliction of duty for the S.S. to ignore it, just like it would be for FIRE. Both did their jobs. Maybe something needs done, maybe not.; 4/22/25, 6:15 PM
Peachy said...: This MSNBC leftist is just feeling what he is told to feel - by the corrupt democratic media and part.; 4/22/25, 6:38 PM
Peachy said...: Leftists would consider a bullet that near-missed - free speech.; 4/22/25, 6:40 PM
Ne exeat said...: When do we stop treating college and university students and faculty the same as the rest of our citizenry? Why do they have their own police forces, their own rules lacking due process to subject their employees and students to kangaroo courts?

Why, when vandalizing a campus building are students or demonstrators not subject to arrest by the city police department just as you or I would be? Why do administrations have the power to act as little kings? Why this carve out in today's world?; 4/22/25, 6:42 PM
Jupiter said...: "And nothing about Free Speech comes with a guarantee to be without consequences."
Well, but. The First Amendment is about, among other things, Free Speech. And it does come with a guarantee about being free of certain sorts of consequences.; 4/22/25, 6:58 PM
GRW3 said...: Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. This kind of essay on top of two failed assassination attempts last year and two recent plots foiled is just asking for trouble. He's on the list. He should understand there is no phone call and no communication that will not be monitored.; 4/22/25, 7:12 PM
Deep State Reformer said...: What's with these TDS afflicted a-holes with their clown nose on/ clown nose off shit? This weenie, far from being terrified, is going to wear this SS visit like a badge of honor and it'll become a line on his resume. Why does the Sword of
Justice never fall on these creeps? The first time one of these violence inciting loose cannons picks up a felony conviction and year in prison, I predict this stuff will stop.; 4/22/25, 7:29 PM
The Vault Dweller said...: I'm happy to see FIRE continue in their unwavering support of Free Speech, making sure to err on the side of Free Speech. Even if folks believe FIRE is wrong on this particular issue it is good to have an organization out there that is always on the side of Free Speech.; 4/22/25, 7:54 PM
Christopher B said...: Paraphrasing my comment at Grim's Hall on his post about this SubStack, Congressman Steve Scalise, Senator Rand Paul, and President Donald Trump might have thoughts about just how "abstract, hypothetical, and lack[ing] any indication of intent" this argument is for Democrats.; 4/22/25, 8:24 PM
boatbuilder said...: Substitute any President, political figure, political group, ethnic group, minority, or race for Trump and/or his supporters, and there is no debate here. Imagine for a second the reaction of the SS, the University, and of FIRE itself if the "essay" had posited killing Obama and/or his supporters. And that reaction would be correct.
Gross irresponsibility has consequences. As does studied incitement.; 4/22/25, 8:26 PM
Ralph L said...: GMU has to look after their own reputation. Not a good look, even in liberal Fairfax County.; 4/22/25, 8:42 PM
Rosalyn C. said...: When someone repeatedly glorifies being "prepared to die" for a noble and honorable cause and expresses their eagerness for the opportunity that deserves some notice. The fact that the writer appears to be an overwrought college student doesn't dismiss the possibility that this individual could be seriously unbalanced. Statements such as: "If the present administration wills it, it could sweep away the courts, it could sweep away democracy, and it could sweep away freedom." indicates a possible delusional break with reality. Seriously, does any sane person believe Trump is on course to sweep away the courts, democracy and freedom or believe that Trump could accomplish that by willing it? A visit by professionals was definitely advisable. It's not illegal to be crazy but sometimes people exhibit disturbing behavior before acting out.; 4/22/25, 9:04 PM
Jerry said...: "Seriously, does any sane person believe Trump is on course to sweep away the courts, democracy and freedom or believe that Trump could accomplish that by willing it?"

They don't care. They've got a narrative, an idea, and by god they're going to run with it. Because THEY believe it, and it's REAL as anything to them.; 4/22/25, 11:35 PM
Ampersand said...: Unfortunately, nobody cares enough about Nicholas to want to do to him what he's ready to do to us.; 4/22/25, 11:41 PM
Achilles said...: Decker said...
If the present administration chooses this course, then the questions of the day can be settled not with legislation, but with blood and iron. In short, we must decide when we must kill them. None of us wish for war, but if the present administration wishes to destroy the nation I would accept war rather than see it perish. I hope that you would choose the same.

The problem here isn't so much his desire to kill his political opponents. That isn't a new thing. The progressive paradigm of the world is based on taking other people's stuff by force and giving it to your friends.

The problem here is that he thinks the progs would win this fight.

I blame public education for his stupidity. Our schools are obviously failing to teach these kids how to think.; 4/23/25, 1:04 AM
Biff said...: Aggie said..."I'll say this as well: In my life I've met with men that served on Presidential details. The SS are very, very good at getting to know all about you when they conduct an interview."

That reminds me of a time when I was "interviewed" by a very petite, very cute, young Israeli agent at Ben Gurion Airport. It was my first time in Israel, and I was going to meet some prominent politicians during the visit. She was an incredible interrogator. It started off and ended with pleasant small talk, but five minutes into it, she almost had me asking myself if I weren't secretly a terrorist! Very impressive.

Ne exeat said...
"When [did] we stop treating college and university students and faculty the same as the rest of our citizenry?...Why, when vandalizing a campus building are students or demonstrators not subject to arrest by the city police department just as you or I would be?...Why this carve out in today's world?"

Indeed. As a blue collar kid who managed to get into an Ivy League school, I was stunned by the apparent double standard almost as soon as I arrived on campus.

On the occasions I've discussed it with faculty or staff whom I know well, they almost always steer toward high-minded discussion of the unique intellectual ferment and social pressures a "child" is exposed to on campus while testing the bounds of adult agency and responsibility, the conflicts created by a university's possibly complicated in loco parentis roles for students under 18, etc., etc.

Regardless of the highfaluting language, it all translates to, "It would be super duper ultra mega bad for our bottom line if the children of wealthy donors or influential politicians were to end up in jail for something connected with their activities on campus. Plus, I kinda like the cut of the kid's jib."; 4/23/25, 1:10 AM
john mosby said...: "Seriously, does any sane person believe Trump is on course to sweep away the courts, democracy and freedom or believe that Trump could accomplish that by willing it?"

Not literally. But he constantly challenges "the way we always do things." He looks at the contract - whether an actual business contract, or our social contract, the big and small-c constitutions, and asks "What does it actually say?," "What happens if I do this?"

And he just went through four years of the other side doing it to him - breaking the norms and relying on what the statutes, etc, actually say. So he's not in the mood to be told "we don't do that" - his answer would be "you just did!"

Plus this term he has lieutenants and advisors who share his way of looking at the world.

So yeah, he is not going to abolish one jot or tittle of the Law, but he is going to fulfil it....

JSM; 4/23/25, 4:42 AM
gilbar said...: just for FUN..
Imagine that it was 2010, and a Young American for Freedom member had posted This EXACT article; identical in EVERY word, Except with Trump replaced with Obama?

What would have happened? anyone want to postulate?; 4/23/25, 5:49 AM
gilbar said...: back in the '90s, here in iowa, a person called a local Public Radio stations call in show, and said:
"President Clinton BETTER be careful! the things he's saying will get him shot"
as i recall, THAT GUY didn't Just get a SS visit.. he went to JAIL for it.; 4/23/25, 5:52 AM
guitar joe said...: "Imagine for a second the reaction of the SS, the University, and of FIRE itself if the "essay" had posited killing Obama and/or his supporters." Correct on all but FIRE, which is pretty consistent, as the ACLU used to be, on free speech stuff.; 4/23/25, 6:17 AM
Lazarus said...: I wonder about the "when" and the "must" in "When Must We Kill Them" (just who the "we" and the "they" are is also problematic). That's different from an academic paper about the right to rebellion or the circumstances when assassination may be justified. If the guy on the roof in Butler PA had posted on social media, "Should I kill Trump today or wait until next week," he would be in prison. Dismissal is certainly justified in this case, even if Decker avoids prosecution.; 4/23/25, 10:31 AM
loudogblog said...: As I've said before, the whole "kill our opponents" thing is over the line. Free speech isn't totally without limitations.

It's ironic that the major universities have actually supressed free speech on the right but allowed so much violence rhetoric (and actual violence) on the left.

It actually took a death threat to get them to tell someone on the left that they had gone too far.; 4/23/25, 11:35 AM
JIM said...: Democrats would put this kid on a "no fly list" yesterday if his essay was directed toward Obama. His fellow students would hold a cancel party for him, and he would be lucky to escape with his limbs intact.; 4/23/25, 11:43 AM
hombre said...: FIRE is getting a little weird. The post was a threat against the POTUS and others, a criminal act not pure speech.; 4/23/25, 11:57 AM
mikee said...: I suggest that when there start being consequences for the Left, their behavior will change. Until then, don't hold your breath waiting for them to do so. I note in passing the local DA has decided no criminal charges are due for the state employee who did $21,000 of damage to Teslas. Federal charges, please?; 4/23/25, 12:11 PM
RobinGoodfellow said...: Rob C said...
Someone should ask that rodeo clown in the Obama mask what he thinks about this.

That was (D)ifferent.; 4/24/25, 8:41 PM