The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire has found itself in hot water following a controversial social media post that has sparked outrage across the board. Early Sunday morning, a post surfaced on X (formerly Twitter) suggesting that assassinating Vice President Kamala Harris would be considered heroic. Although the post was quickly deleted, screenshots began circulating, revealing the inflammatory message: “Anyone who murders Kamala Harris would be an American hero.”
In response, the Libertarian Party attempted to address the fallout. On the same day, they issued a statement explaining their actions. “We deleted a tweet because we don’t want to break the terms of this website we agreed to,” they said. “It’s a shame that even on a ‘free speech’ website that libertarians cannot speak freely.” This defense, however, did little to quell the backlash.
Political Reactions Pour In
The reaction from political figures was swift and severe. Raymond Buckley, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, did not hold back. He denounced the post as “disgusting, dangerous, and wrong,” highlighting the serious implications of such rhetoric. Similarly, Chris Ager, chair of the New Hampshire GOP, made his stance clear: “There is no room for this type of dialogue,” he declared emphatically. “PERIOD.”
This isn’t the first time the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire has faced criticism for its social media presence. Last year, Governor Chris Sununu condemned their posts mocking the Holocaust and the death of Senator John McCain as “horribly insulting.” The party's track record of controversial statements has raised questions about their approach to sensitive topics.
Is This Speech Protected?
The controversy extends into legal territory as well. A community note on the party’s post claimed that inciting violence is not protected under free speech laws. According to the note, “it is legally not free speech to incite violence.” The Libertarians, however, countered that while their post might have violated X’s terms of service, it remained “perfectly legal.”
This legal debate hinges on the nuances of the First Amendment. Incitement to violence is not protected as free speech, but the context is crucial. According to the landmark Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, for speech to be considered incitement, it must be directed at “inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and be “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Investigations and Responses
The local FBI office, when contacted by Boston.com, referred inquiries to the U.S. Secret Service, which did not provide immediate comments. Meanwhile, WMUR reported that the New Hampshire Department of Safety was aware of the situation and was coordinating with federal partners to address the issue.
The Libertarian Party’s response to media inquiries has been equally controversial. When The Boston Globe reached out for comments, the party’s reply was a direct attack on their journalists, labeling them as “evil as rapists and murderers.” They further stated, “A proper society would exclude Globe Journalists from residing within it entirely,” adding a final note that this was their “only comment.”
Unrelated Developments
Adding to the tumultuous weekend, former President Donald Trump was reportedly the target of an assassination attempt at his Florida golf club on the same day. Trump’s campaign confirmed that he was “safe and well,” and the alleged shooter was taken into custody. The incident has stirred additional headlines and has drawn attention away from the Libertarian Party’s controversy.
As the dust settles, the debate over the boundaries of free speech, especially in the context of incitement and social media, continues to unfold. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire’s recent actions and the ensuing backlash underscore the ongoing tensions between free expression and responsible discourse in today’s highly polarized political climate.
Login