DAVID MARCUS: Three ways Trump can make campuses safe for conservative speakers

Wild beast Turning Point, the founder of the United States assassination Charlie Kirk At this week’s Utah event, it’s once again made clear that conservative speakers are not safe on campus in the U.S. and that something must be done to change that.

The Trump administration has tools in the shed to solve this problem, but before we solve it, let’s see how bad things get.

The highest conservative speaker vows “not to be silent” after Charlie Kirk assassination

The term “Heckler’s veto” is a relative novices in English. It was created in 1965 by Harry Kalven, a law professor at the University of Chicago in his book Black and First Amendment.

Kalven describes how government authorities will deny the right of civil rights protesters to refuse to gather because of threats to them, and the costs associated with protecting them from them. Heckler will therefore veto the activity.

During the 60 years of rapid progress, Heckler’s veto was still alive, but today, it is not used to silence the left, but to the right. This week, it kept Charlie Kirk silent forever at the age of 31.

This is Heckler’s veto at the muzzle.

The threat to conservatives like Kirk, Ben Shapiro or Jack Posobiec over the years was so severe that the college had to bear security costs. After this assassination, these expenses will become even more untenable.

Boston University College Republicans demand safety, Charlie Kirk’s accountability after assassination

Meanwhile, terrorist underground terrorists and supporters of police killers like Mumia Abu Jamal often speak at our higher education institutions with little protest.

Today, around the country, conservative student groups who want to invite speakers to schools face almost insurmountable conservation challenges.

Beyond that, it is understandable that the well-known conservatives themselves may choose not to risk appearing in college, rather than being out of cowardice, but out of common sense.

This is Heckler’s veto at the muzzle.

There are three ways the Trump administration can take to ensure conservative speakers and listeners appear in college. Let’s proceed in turn.

First of all, the hard power. Just as the government spent resources in the 1960s to protect First Amendment rights of civil rights protesters, it must protect today’s conservative spokesperson, perhaps the National Guard.

For some time, governments can offset the burdens faced by universities that preside over conservatives and likely restore the value of once shared debate and ideological diversity.

Second, it is now clear that Charlie Kirk’s assassin was inspired by Antifa, and law enforcement must eventually focus on breaking the well-organized Antifa machine, which will not only scare colleges but cosity colleagues, but also cities like Portland and Seattle.

Just a few years ago, outgoing Rep. Jerry Nadler (DN.Y.) told the press that Antifa is a myth. Until today, there are unconscious idiots in stupid people saying, “How can anti-fascism be broken?” Even if the covered criminals burned the federal buildings.

Indeed, Kirk’s enemy was allegedly dreaming of fascism, his killer said directly that he was fighting with cold-blooded and cowardly behavior.

Through brave reports of journalists such as Andy NGO, we absolutely know that Antifa not only exists, but is a multinational, even international organization dedicated to using violence to achieve its left-wing political goals. Just as the FBI tried to intimidate and stop civil rights protests in the 1960s, Ku Klux Klan worked to break up with Ku Klux Klan, Antifa must be treated in the exact same way today.

Finally, the Trump administration wisely used the threat of cutting federal funds to universities because they failed to fight anti-Semitism. Similar efforts can be made to ensure that ideological diversity is protected in our universities.

Click here for more Fox News comments

Such measures can be clearly demonstrated that conservative students and campus organizations either refuse to allow them to hold events or claim that doing so is too expensive.

Charlie Kirk is well aware of the risks, but despite making himself a target, he sits in a large open quad and invites all the visitors, including those who make him an American martyr.

Charlie’s sacrifice must not be futile. This must be a clarification call to ensure that any student or speaker can participate in political discourse without fear of violence or even death.

Just like where he lives, Charlie Kirk’s name should be synonymous with the protection of freedom of speech.

Now is the time to act with President Trump at the White House, and may actually have taken the necessary action.

Click here to learn more about David Marcus