Washington Post fires columnist for quoting Charlie Kirk on social media

[jmdrake]

Washington Post opinion columnist Karen Attiah says she was fired over Charlie Kirk posts

“Now, I am the one being silenced — for doing my job,\

www.usatoday.com

Sure. Private business can fire people. But this is still pretty scummy for an organization that claims to be for freedom of speech.

 

[Invisible Man]

Something tells me this isn't the whole story here.

The Washington Post is not an employer that I can see firing someone just for sharing accurate Charlie Kirk quotes on twitter and nothing more.

 

[CaptUSA]

Something tells me this isn't the whole story here.

The Washington Post is not an employer that I can see firing someone just for sharing accurate Charlie Kirk quotes on twitter and nothing more.

Well, she posted this:

First, she put it in direct quotes, which is not what Kirk actually said. So, there's dishonesty there. Her point in posting that was to paint him as a racist right after he was murdered for political reasons. He was talking about very specific black individuals who said themselves that they were where they were because of affirmative action.

Here's his actual words in context:


I don't like his tone, but it's a policy disagreement he's addressing - and it's not racist.

Here are a few more accurate quotes that somehow get missed by those who want to piss on his grave:

• “I judge people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.”• Source: Speech at Turning Point USA’s 2023 Student Action Summit in Tampa (July 22, 2023).• Context: In a keynote address urging students toward civic engagement, Kirk borrowed and adapted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous line to reinforce that he values individual merit over racial categories.
• “Don’t let anybody tell you that because you’re a person of color—or a woman—or LGBTQ—you can’t lead this country.”• Source: Interview on The Charlie Kirk Show, August 15, 2024 (audio transcript).• Context: Responding to questions about diversity initiatives, he encouraged listeners from all backgrounds to aspire to leadership roles, emphasizing personal agency above identity labels.
• “No one should be pigeon-holed by their race, their gender, or who they love. If you work hard, you can achieve anything.”• Source: Campus town‐hall at University of Georgia (April 10, 2024).• Context: During a Q&A with students, Kirk stressed that public policies should uplift opportunity, not enforce group-based quotas, and he framed success as a product of effort rather than identity.
• “Racism has no place here—there are bigots in every demographic, and we should call them out wherever they hide.”• Source: X/Twitter post, March 21, 2025.• Context: In the aftermath of a hate-crime wave in a Midwestern city, Kirk tweeted to condemn “any hate against any group” and urged all Americans to unite against prejudice.

I'm surprised she lost her job, based on the atmosphere at the Post, but this probably belongs in the, "If you don't have anything nice to say..." realm.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Washington Post opinion columnist Karen Attiah says she was fired over Charlie Kirk posts

“Now, I am the one being silenced — for doing my job,\

www.usatoday.com

Sure. Private business can fire people. But this is still pretty scummy for an organization that claims to be for freedom of speech.

She misquoted him (right after he was assassinated, which does not reflect well on her employer). Now you are mischaracterizing the reason she was fired.

 

[jmdrake]

She misquoted him (right after he was assassinated, which does not reflect well on her employer). Now you are mischaracterizing the reason she was fired.

What exactly was the misquote? Because I've seen a lot of people on the right say "Charlie Kirk didn't say that" when he absolutely did. For example, Charlie Kirk called Simone Biles a sociopath for her deciding to not risk her own safety by taking herself out of the gold medal round after developing the lost movement syndrome (LMS) also known as "the twisties." Simone Biles did vaults that are so advanced other coaches wanted them banned from competition because of the risk. LMS is a known phenomenon that happened well before Simone Biles. Here is a YouTube about it from back in 2012.



Charlie Kirk wasn't the only person to attack Simone Biles for removing herself from the gold medal round, but I can't think of anyone more vile about it than Charlie Kirk. I can't file the video, but I the black YouTube channel "Kevin's Corner" calling her a "quitter" and asking why she couldn't have been like Mary Lou Retton who competed with a hurt ankle. Here's the irony of that. Mary Lou's family had to do a GoFundme to pay for her medical bills because, according to her, she cannot afford coverage due to her gymnastics related injuries.

Anyway, that's just one example. Charlie Kirk also misrepresented United Airlines DEI with false claims that it lowered qualifications for black pilots. Nothing could be further from the truth. United Airlines, faced with a pilot shortage, did what the U.S. Army did during World War 2 with the Tuskegee Airmen and that is set up their own flight school and encourage women and minorities to apply. In fact the Tuskeegee Airmen experiment waw MORE DEI than United Airlines in that ONLY blacks were admitted to the Tuskeegee program whereas United Airlines program was open to everyone but merely had a heavy HBCU recruitment component.

 

[jmdrake]

Well, she posted this:

First, she put it in direct quotes, which is not what Kirk actually said. So, there's dishonesty there. Her point in posting that was to paint him as a racist right after he was murdered for political reasons. He was talking about very specific black individuals who said themselves that they were where they were because of affirmative action.

Here's his actual words in context:


I don't like his tone, but it's a policy disagreement he's addressing - and it's not racist.

Here are a few more accurate quotes that somehow get missed by those who want to piss on his grave:

• “I judge people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.”• Source: Speech at Turning Point USA’s 2023 Student Action Summit in Tampa (July 22, 2023).• Context: In a keynote address urging students toward civic engagement, Kirk borrowed and adapted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous line to reinforce that he values individual merit over racial categories.
• “Don’t let anybody tell you that because you’re a person of color—or a woman—or LGBTQ—you can’t lead this country.”• Source: Interview on The Charlie Kirk Show, August 15, 2024 (audio transcript).• Context: Responding to questions about diversity initiatives, he encouraged listeners from all backgrounds to aspire to leadership roles, emphasizing personal agency above identity labels.
• “No one should be pigeon-holed by their race, their gender, or who they love. If you work hard, you can achieve anything.”• Source: Campus town‐hall at University of Georgia (April 10, 2024).• Context: During a Q&A with students, Kirk stressed that public policies should uplift opportunity, not enforce group-based quotas, and he framed success as a product of effort rather than identity.
• “Racism has no place here—there are bigots in every demographic, and we should call them out wherever they hide.”• Source: X/Twitter post, March 21, 2025.• Context: In the aftermath of a hate-crime wave in a Midwestern city, Kirk tweeted to condemn “any hate against any group” and urged all Americans to unite against prejudice.

I'm surprised she lost her job, based on the atmosphere at the Post, but this probably belongs in the, "If you don't have anything nice to say..." realm.

Someone who is a self-aware racist, like Nick Fuentes, would say that Clarence Thomas was an affirmative action pick. Kentanji Brown Jackson graduated from a more prestigious school, with higher grades and served on an appeals court longer than Clarence Thomas before being nominated. Clarence Thomas was chosen because a Republican president wanted to fill Thurgood Marshall's seat with a black jurist. To only single out QUALIFIED black women and say they are somehow unqualified simply because they are liberal is as problematic as disparaging someone because of his or her race in general. Again, Nick Fuentes is racist but he admits it.



Edit: I do agree that giving more context would have made her argument stronger. (Charlie Kirk attacked a justice with more qualifications than Clarence Thomas as somehow being unqualified). And I agree with you that Charlie's tone is part of the problem. I am not surprised that the Washington Post fired her. It took a strong pro Trump turn after Jeff Bezos bought it. And Jeff Bezos took a strong pro Trump turn after big Zionist donors came to the conclusion that Trump would give them what they wanted.

 

[jmdrake]

She misquoted him (right after he was assassinated, which does not reflect well on her employer). Now you are mischaracterizing the reason she was fired.

I see others in the thread have pointed out the quote about black women and mental capacity. Kentanji Brown Jackson graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and Clarence Thomas graduated cum laude from less prestigious Holy Cross. Kentanji Brown Jackson served on an appeals court 9 years before being nominated to SCOTUS and Clarence Thomas was only on 1 year. Based on actual qualifications it's more accurate to say Clarence Thomas "stole" some white person's slot than Kentanji Brown Jackson.

 

[TheTexan]

I see others in the thread have pointed out the quote about black women and mental capacity. Kentanji Brown Jackson graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and Clarence Thomas graduated cum laude from less prestigious Holy Cross. Kentanji Brown Jackson served on an appeals court 9 years before being nominated to SCOTUS and Clarence Thomas was only on 1 year. Based on actual qualifications it's more accurate to say Clarence Thomas "stole" some white person's slot than Kentanji Brown Jackson.

Probably DEI. Her name is Ketanji so she can't be that qualified.

That'd be like a white dude named Cletus getting nominated to the Supreme Court.

If she were smart she'd oppose DEI because otherwise the alleged accomplishments of allegedly qualified blacks will never be recognized for what they claim to be

 

[Occam's Banana]

I don't care what her credentials are, she should be impeached and thrown off the court, just for this alone:

 

[jmdrake]

I don't care what her credentials are, she should be impeached and thrown off the court, just for this alone:

Don't just impeach her then:

'Hamstringing the government': A viral narrative distorts Ketanji Brown Jackson's understanding of free speech

Not unlike Trump's "bloodbath" comment, a viral narrative has totally distorted Ketanji Brown Jackson's comments on the First Amendment.

reason.com

"My biggest concern," said Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Monday, "is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways."

That comment came during oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, the case that asks if President Joe Biden's administration violated the First Amendment when it sought to pressure social media apps to remove information it deemed harmful. It took almost no time for Jackson's tidbit to set off the viral narrative that she doesn't grasp basic constitutional principles, particularly when considering the point of the First Amendment is indeed to hamstring what the government can do in response to speech it may not like.

"Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment 'hamstrings' government," wrote Fox News. "Leftists want unlimited government — which is why they hate the Constitution," lamented The Federalist. It was "literally one of the craziest things I've ever seen," said Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio).















But like so many viral narratives, Jackson's comments were fairly benign in context, and were actually echoed by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Perhaps most ironically, her remark spoke fundamentally to the crux of the case: The government, of course, does not have the right to punish someone criminally for the vast majority of speech. But does it have the right to persuade?

Jackson may think it does. Her "hamstringing" comment came attached to a hypothetical scenario she posed to Benjamin Aguiñaga, Louisiana's solicitor general, who argued the Biden administration had overstepped when it contacted social media platforms and attempted to pressure them to remove posts it found objectionable. Suppose a challenge circulated on social media concerning "teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations," Jackson said. Could the government try to persuade those platforms to remove that content?

No, Aguiñaga said, because that's still protected speech, no matter how dangerous.

That might very well be the correct interpretation. But Jackson's take—that such a view could place too much restraint on the government—is one that's held by many, including, it appears, some of her more conservative colleagues. Kavanaugh, for example, invoked his experience working with government press staff, who regularly call reporters to criticize them and try to influence their coverage. Would it be illegal for the feds to prosecute those journalists for pieces that cast them in a negative light? Absolutely. Is it beyond the pale for the government to express what it believes to be true in seeking better coverage? Not necessarily, Kavanaugh said.

That doesn't mean they're correct. But the great irony of the viral Jackson pile-on is that, based on oral arguments, her view may very well prevail.

Jackson, of course, is not the first to find herself in this situation. At a recent rally in Ohio, former President Donald Trump said there would be a "bloodbath" if he were to lose. The comment set off a media frenzy, despite that, once again, the comment, which seemed to refer to the auto industry, appeared far more benign in context. But if partisans have one thing in common, it's confirmation bias. They often differ on which ideas they want to succeed, but they want their side confirmed just the same—sometimes at the expense of truth.

 

[jmdrake]

Probably DEI. Her name is Ketanji so she can't be that qualified.

That'd be like a white dude named Cletus getting nominated to the Supreme Court.

If she were smart she'd oppose DEI because otherwise the alleged accomplishments of allegedly qualified blacks will never be recognized for what they claim to be

This belongs here.

 

[CaptUSA]

I see others in the thread have pointed out the quote about black women and mental capacity. Kentanji Brown Jackson graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and Clarence Thomas graduated cum laude from less prestigious Holy Cross. Kentanji Brown Jackson served on an appeals court 9 years before being nominated to SCOTUS and Clarence Thomas was only on 1 year. Based on actual qualifications it's more accurate to say Clarence Thomas "stole" some white person's slot than Kentanji Brown Jackson.

Ok, but that's all despite the point of this thread.

She misquoted him. On purpose. For a very particular purpose. To make him look like a racist. Right after he was brutally murdered in front of his children and a live audience.

Who does that?! And what employer wants to be associated with an employee who does that? (and it goes against their written policies)

 

[jmdrake]

Ok, but that's all despite the point of this thread.

She misquoted him. On purpose. For a very particular purpose. To make him look like a racist. Right after he was brutally murdered in front of his children and a live audience.

Who does that?! And what employer wants to be associated with an employee who does that? (and it goes against their written policies)

So now you are able to read minds and assign motivations? Seriously? Who does that? How do you know what was actually going through her head when she wrote the tweet? You are assuming the best about Charlie Kirk and his motivations and words and the worst about the motivations and words of his critics. That seems at least a tad unfair.

I get your argument. Charlie Kirk didn't generalize to ALL black women the way a Nick Fuentes does. But looking at the wider context, the ONLY evidence that he had that these women "lacked brain capacity" is the fact that they praised affirmative action. It's circular reasoning on the part of Charlie Kirk. "There is no racial discrimination against black people, therefore if someone is black and his helped by affirmative action that person must not be qualified therefore these women must not have been qualified." And I would argue that, even going by your "context", Charlie Kirk "appears racist." This is the type of racism you get from a Charlie Kirk. A black person is qualified only to the extent that said black person agrees with Charlie Kirk. Basically be a step-in-fetchit and you're qualified. Think for yourself and you're not. And yes, liberals do the same thing. Clarence Thomas was nominated to SCOTUS as a Republican "DEI/Affirmative Action" pick and nobody on the right complains about it, but people on the left attack his qualifications simply for him being a black conservative. And yet the right which CLAIMS to be "merit based" ignores the fact that KBJ has, at least on paper, provably better qualifications. You can't have it both ways.

 

[TheTexan]

So now you are able to read minds and assign motivations? Seriously? Who does that? How do you know what was actually going through her head when she wrote the tweet? You are assuming the best about Charlie Kirk and his motivations and words and the worst about the motivations and words of his critics. That seems at least a tad unfair.

I get your argument. Charlie Kirk didn't generalize to ALL black women the way a Nick Fuentes does. But looking at the wider context, the ONLY evidence that he had that these women "lacked brain capacity" is the fact that they praised affirmative action. It's circular reasoning on the part of Charlie Kirk. "There is no racial discrimination against black people, therefore if someone is black and his helped by affirmative action that person must not be qualified therefore these women must not have been qualified." And I would argue that, even going by your "context", Charlie Kirk "appears racist." This is the type of racism you get from a Charlie Kirk. A black person is qualified only to the extent that said black person agrees with Charlie Kirk. Basically be a step-in-fetchit and you're qualified. Think for yourself and you're not. And yes, liberals do the same thing. Clarence Thomas was nominated to SCOTUS as a Republican "DEI/Affirmative Action" pick and nobody on the right complains about it, but people on the left attack his qualifications simply for him being a black conservative. And yet the right which CLAIMS to be "merit based" ignores the fact that KBJ has, at least on paper, provably better qualifications. You can't have it both ways.

"White people claim to be merit based but ignore the fact that KBJ has better qualifications."

- jmdrake

 

[jmdrake]

"White people claim to be merit based but ignore the fact that KBJ has better qualifications."

- jmdrake

Do the math. KBJ - Magna cum laude from Harvard and 9 years appellate experience. CT - Cum laude from Holy Cross an 1 year appellate experience. You don't have to agree with KBJ but you can't (honestly) dispute the fact that her qualifications before being nominated were higher than CT's when he was nominated.

 

[acptulsa]

"White people claim to be merit based but ignore the fact that KBJ has better qualifications..."

- jmdrake

...than Clarence Thomas.

Learn to read.

 

[Invisible Man]

Well, she posted this:

First, she put it in direct quotes, which is not what Kirk actually said. So, there's dishonesty there. Her point in posting that was to paint him as a racist right after he was murdered for political reasons. He was talking about very specific black individuals who said themselves that they were where they were because of affirmative action.

Here's his actual words in context:


I don't like his tone, but it's a policy disagreement he's addressing - and it's not racist.

Here are a few more accurate quotes that somehow get missed by those who want to piss on his grave:

• “I judge people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.”• Source: Speech at Turning Point USA’s 2023 Student Action Summit in Tampa (July 22, 2023).• Context: In a keynote address urging students toward civic engagement, Kirk borrowed and adapted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous line to reinforce that he values individual merit over racial categories.
• “Don’t let anybody tell you that because you’re a person of color—or a woman—or LGBTQ—you can’t lead this country.”• Source: Interview on The Charlie Kirk Show, August 15, 2024 (audio transcript).• Context: Responding to questions about diversity initiatives, he encouraged listeners from all backgrounds to aspire to leadership roles, emphasizing personal agency above identity labels.
• “No one should be pigeon-holed by their race, their gender, or who they love. If you work hard, you can achieve anything.”• Source: Campus town‐hall at University of Georgia (April 10, 2024).• Context: During a Q&A with students, Kirk stressed that public policies should uplift opportunity, not enforce group-based quotas, and he framed success as a product of effort rather than identity.
• “Racism has no place here—there are bigots in every demographic, and we should call them out wherever they hide.”• Source: X/Twitter post, March 21, 2025.• Context: In the aftermath of a hate-crime wave in a Midwestern city, Kirk tweeted to condemn “any hate against any group” and urged all Americans to unite against prejudice.

I'm surprised she lost her job, based on the atmosphere at the Post, but this probably belongs in the, "If you don't have anything nice to say..." realm.

Yeah, that is a pretty important detail. So she didn't just share accurate quotes. She attributed words to him as a direct quote that factually were not. That's something journalists need to not do.

 

[jmdrake]

//

 

[Invisible Man]

So now you are able to read minds and assign motivations? Seriously? Who does that? How do you know what was actually going through her head when she wrote the tweet? You are assuming the best about Charlie Kirk and his motivations and words and the worst about the motivations and words of his critics. That seems at least a tad unfair.

I don't understand what your defense of her is. You seem to concede the point that she lied by saying that Kirk said something he didn't. Doesn't that right there settle the case against her?

The thread title should also be changed. She wasn't fired for quoting Kirk. She was fired for falsely claiming that he said something he didn't.

 

[acptulsa]

Learn to read your own dumb self. I already gave the context that I was talking about Clarence Thomas...

... while I was typing that.

Sorry I tried to help.