Do We Actually Need a "Charlie Kirk Act"?
Sounds stellar in theory; in practice, it could put me in prison.
Over the weekend, social media exploded with an assembly of armchair attorneys all sharing a single specialty: the Smith–Mundt Act. Passed in 1948 and formally called the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act, it was America’s propaganda firewall. The Act basically gave Washington the green light to pump out an endless stream of government-made messaging abroad—radio shows, pamphlets, newswires, glossy films, and more—but they could not be broadcast or distributed here. I guess Congress figured it was fine for Uncle Sam to brainwash strangers overseas, but he wasn’t allowed to try to manipulate folks back home.
Fast-forward to 2012, when Obama signed the Smith–Mundt Modernization Act. On paper, it was a housekeeping update: in the age of the internet, why bother pretending Americans couldn’t stumble across Voice of America clips or Radio Free Europe broadcasts online? Open the floodgates. In practice, though, it tore down the old firewall. U.S. agencies could now freely pipe “public diplomacy” content (i.e. state-funded propaganda) straight into American ears and eyeballs.
Supporters called it keeping up with the times. Critics labeled it legalized government propaganda [courtesy of Obummer].
Cue some random lady named Elly May, a passionate, pink-haired, tongue-pierced “mom looking to make a difference.” In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the TikToker posted a fiery video calling for President Trump to revive the Smith–Mundt Act and rebrand it as the “Charlie Kirk Act.” She accused the media of being complicit in Kirk’s murder by normalizing and amplifying hatred *SHE’S NOT WRONG* and asked viewers to share and repost her plea and “tag Trump so we can get this to him as quickly as possible.”
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Elly May’s well-made point: The media landscape is out of control—opinions offered as facts, AI-generated junk stories and images flooding “news” feeds, labels like “Nazi” and “fascist” being thrown around like confetti by officials, universities, and broadcasters—and it’s costing lives. She wants penalties. Big ones. She floated fines worth 35% of a company’s value for “baseless accusations” and called for accountability not just for mainstream outlets, but also for content creators who spread propaganda.
[That last line should make your spine tingle a little.]
Incredibly, the Internet did what the Internet does and within a day, Elly May’s post had gone viral, making it all the way to the White House. POTUS shared it on Truth Social, which is probably the dead-end dream scenario for a random conservative TikToker. One minute you’re filming a rant in your golf cart (it appears), the next the actual President of the United States is sharing it and your Change.org petition has tens of thousands of signatures.
“[Charlie’s] life was taken, not from any wrongdoing of his own, but because of unfounded allegations perpetuated by mainstream media,” Elly May’s appeal states.
“We find ourselves calling for the reimplementation of the Smith-Mundt Act, a pivotal legislative piece that safeguarded the American public from the manipulation and dissemination of false information. Join us in this mission to restore accountability in the media and uphold the truth.”
I hope you’re sitting down when I inform you that the mainstream media hasn’t touched the story—but X users are sharing it like they just uncovered the Colonel’s secret blend of 11 herbs and spices.
Here’s where the waters get dangerously muddy: Critics argue [which should be a band name up there with the Baffled Scientists] that when you write a law that bans “propaganda,” you’re by default leaving it to the state to define what propaganda is. There’s also the sticky issue of who gets to decide when a public health campaign or military recruitment ad or, I don’t know, a snarky Substack like this one, crosses the line.
It’s not a minor detail.
Consider: Countries including Russia, China, Turkey, and Germany have all used “anti-propaganda” measures to silence independent media outlets and jail journalists (and sometimes, ordinary citizens) who deviate from the narrative or criticize government policies. In practice, these laws can become catch-all nets—sweeping up reporters, bloggers, cartoonists, even everyday people who repost the wrong meme. The official excuse is always “protecting the public,” but the real effect is chilling speech and tightening control.
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.
Will Congress actually rename a Cold War-era law after Charlie Kirk? That remains to be seen. But the fact that this dusty statute is suddenly part of the national conversation says a lot about where we are. People are fed up. We don’t trust the media. We don’t trust the narrative. We definitely don’t trust the government. So when someone comes along and says “hey, what if we rewrote the rules of the game?”—it resonates.
What do you think?
ALSO… and this is hardly a postscript topic, but I posited in an earlier substack that the “lone shooter” line we’re being fed is a tad too tidy—and, frankly, improbable. Based on my informal poll, a majority of you agreed with me; a decent percentage did not. (I genuinely love that, by the way. Please keep disagreeing! Respectfully, of course!)
Since then, amateur forensics experts have poked additional gaping holes in the party line and posed questions that are hard to ignore. They’ve pointed out countless inconsistencies in the “official” story and flagged a few seriously questionable characters at the scene. They’ve analyzed the angle, the trajectory, the aftermath, the crowd, the moment of impact, in painstaking, frame-by-frame detail. The clips are excruciating to watch and the ramifications are painful to consider. I have never said I have the answers and I assure you that I still don’t—I’ve said I thought we were being lied to and I assure you that I still do—but every day new intel emerges that at the very least, seems worth exploring.
As of this writing, authorities have not released any specific forensic details about the fatal bullet itself, so any assumptions we are making at the moment are based on the rifle-conveniently-found-in-the-woods story. And of course, now that the web is ablaze with Charlie Kirk Murder Suspect In Relationship with Transgender Roommate rumors, the focus can flip back to speculation about ideological decay and left-on-right violence. Which, I believe, is intentional. But I’m just a conspiracy theorist. I’d love to know what you think. ;)
"but X users are sharing it like they just uncovered the Colonel’s secret blend of 11 herbs and spices." OMG! A serious subject to be sure, but could not stop laughing!
Honestly, what I am more concerned about is the fact that an Adam Schiff can go in front of the MSM and make a jillion wild claims about Trump-Russia Collusion out in the open, and then, as head of the House Intel Committee, go into closed Congressional Hearings and claim he had no evidence of such. Unbelievable how this was and is seemingly still allowed.
Ahh... how so very convenient. Who knew this was coming? The death of a free speech advocate triggers calls for less free speech.
Meanwhile, does anyone else find it just a bit odd that there is a video of his wife crying and talking to her husband's dead body in a casket but only showing their hands? Call me crazy, but the last thing I want and think while I'm grieving is to post my grief on social media.