TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 adamantly defends Charlie’s security team, calling them an elite, lifelong ally group and stating they are “brothers with Charlie” who are “supporting Charlie at all times.” They argue that if any danger had been suspected that day in Utah, they wouldn’t have released Charlie to public life. Security at events is described as a collaboration with local police, with campus protection handled by university police; there is a delineation between personal protection for Charlie and campus protection. At Utah Valley University, the campus perimeter and rooftops were the responsibility of campus security, while outside appearances require the team to cover gaps where no police presence exists. The team is said to have performed impeccably and were among the first to try to save Charlie. They emphasize willingness to sacrifice for others and condemn online misinformation. They advocate a robust drone program and constant rooftop surveillance as standard, and note the investigation is ongoing, with the suspect in custody and going to trial.

Speaker 1 questions the letter's truth; Speaker 2 confirms, "Yeah. I mean, it's it's real." They reference Nick Fuentes claiming Israel killed Charlie and mention "the call, like, Israel called him and told him to to to." Speaker 2 summarizes Charlie's Israel stance as nuanced: "he wanted people who controlled The Holy Land to be civilized people" and "didn't want it to be in the hands of Islam," preferring "a civilized group ... friendly to the West" over hostile Muslim nations. He was frustrated at being unable to criticize Israel without being labeled an anti Semitic, and had vehement disagreements about how the war was prosecuted and messaged; he wanted it to be over and saw more freedom to criticize America than Israel. "Even Tucker Carlson" noted Charlie Kirk's anti Semitic labeling; "BB's comments" were odd; he hosted critics like Dave Smith and recognized that "young people were much more Israeli skeptic," arguing that silencing debate would be a "huge disservice to the conservative movement."

Speaker 0 says, "And I don't know how the executives over at Turning Point USA sleep at night." He adds, "No matter what the cost is, you tell the truth. That's it." He alleges that "about forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point, as well as Jewish donors and a rabbi, that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright" and that he "refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors." He challenges TPUSA to answer: "Did he express that? Did he also express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back because he was standing up for himself?" He asks for "'the name of the Jewish donor who sponsored the Hamptons weekend'" and whether there were LLCs paying Rob McCoy. He asserts, "Charlie did not die pro Israel. He did not die for Israel," noting that "Friends of Israel were pressuring him really badly." He vows to expose lies and ends, "Somewhere, Charlie is watching."

Charlie mentioned Tucker and Candace forty eight hours earlier as they were trying to control who he's allowed to speak to. He was worried that Israel was infringing upon speech in America; "I have text messages to that effect." He was genuinely pro Israel; "there was nothing. there was not payment that was coming in." Toward the end, he was "over it towards the end because of Jewish behavior". Less than forty eight hours before he died, "Charlie announces that he has no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause because of Jewish donors and their behavior living up to these stereotypes." We never said "Israel killed Charlie Kirk." "I am uncomfortable with how many lies people that support Israel have been telling in the wake of his death."

I was shocked and sickened by the reaction of the ghoulish and really repulsive reaction of the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to Charlie's death. He basically made it all about him and redirected the grief toward support for his project. "Benjamin Netanyahu is not the same as the nation of Israel at all." "BB's defenders, on the Internet will call me a liar or a kook, but that's a fact." "what he said was completely untrue." "Charlie didn't hate Jews. He loved Jews. He loved the state of Israel. He loved going there." "He did not like Bibi Netanyahu, and he said that to me many times." "He felt that Bibi Netanyahu was a very destructive force." "He was resentful that he believed Netanyahu was using The United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country." "Shortly after that speech, there was a very intense attack on Charlie; he had $100,000,000 worth of donors." "Two days before he died, he lost a $2,000,000 donation because he had publicly pledged to bring me to the next Turning Point Conference in December." "They put out a flyer basically saying that I was going to be at this event giving a speech."

Candace Owens claims Netanyahu lied about the letter Charlie Kirk wrote to him, saying Netanyahu read a letter on US national television 'about how much Charlie loved Israel,' but Owens says 'that's not what the letter said.' Owens, a close friend of Charlie Kirk, says Netanyahu needs to release that full letter: 'Let Charlie speak for himself. Don't put fake words in his mouth.' She questions why 'you're the leader of a nation who's at war with seven countries halfway across the world, and you're booking a prime time slot on US TV airwaves to come and lie about Charlie one day after this tragedy? What is going here?' Noting that Charlie was 'at war with his donors over the question of Israel and the war in Iran,' she adds this was heating up and Charlie was fearing for his life. She concludes: 'Do not listen to people who say stop asking questions because they do not have your best interests at heart, they definitely don't have Charlie's best interests at heart, and they don't want you to find out the truth.'

Speaker questions the FBI and media’s suggestion that 'this Tyler was some type of trans kid, lone shooter on a roof.' They claim they could give '150,000 reasons why Israel would benefit from Charlie Kirk being assassinated' and that 'the government in Israel ... would have fallen' if Kirk continued speaking. They say they can't give 'one reason why Tyler would' do it, even if he had a trans boyfriend. They reference 'Raw Alerts' and claim 'the dude running the Raw Alerts page is wearing a doggy mask and diapers and into trans fetish crap' and that he’s 'on our side fighting to expose corruption.' They argue the shooter 'didn't seem radicalized' with no posts on social media, asking what radicalized trans person do you know that didn't leave a memoir. They declare, 'this demonic state ... worship Satan, bomb children' and wonder how Israel would benefit; 'What about you guys?'

- "Charlie Kirk is the pro Zionist guy." - "What if they were listening in to him and he was in communications with people saying, hey. I think I'm gonna go this direction and they knew his intentions or saw this pattern." - "Here's this pro Zionist guy with this incredibly powerful platform that they built, by the way, that Charlie has, thanks to them." - "So if he's gonna take what they gave him and turn it against them, that could literally destroy Israel because the youth is people they're most concerned about." - "We can't let him turn." - "Israel was never my top suspect until, you know, I've spent twenty four hours thinking about it, I'm like, it's not unreasonable. It's not even out of the question in terms of would Israel do this." - "it's in their wheelhouse."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 address a viral video about Charlie’s chief of staff, Mikey, and explain why they are discussing it. - The video in question attacks Mikey, Charlie’s chief of staff, claiming based on a few seconds of clips that he allegedly has a nonchalant or calm reaction to Charlie’s murder. They describe this as a “extremely disgusting attack.” - Speaker 1 recounts what happened: they were at the scene when a shooting occurred. The loud crack is heard; they turn and see Charlie has been shot. They realize there is a shooter on the scene. They decide to get out of there rather than be shot, noting Charlie had a security team that leapt into action to get Charlie out. - Speaker 0 notes their own actions: he, too, considered getting into the car, but decided against it. He was ahead of Mikey as they left. He recalls a moment where he paused to assess the situation, then saw Mikey, who was profoundly freaked out. Mikey’s lip was quivering, and he said, “I need to call Erica,” then took his phone and began calling Erica. Speaker 0 also called his own mom, saying there had been a shooting and that he was okay. - They describe Mikey’s later actions: after the initial shock, Mikey took charge like a “general directing a battle,” coordinating hospital transport and information flow, and directing people where to go. When they learned Charlie had died, Mikey told them, “now none of you can say anything that you've heard because it is Erica is not going to hear about this from anyone except me.” - Speaker 2 asks if Mikey could be involved in a conspiracy to murder Charlie. Speaker 1 responds that such accusations are vile and describes how some people online fuel such narratives, comparing the mindset to getting a “high” from dangerous or provocative content. - The speakers emphasize Mikey’s heroic actions: Mikey was distressed but stepped up to direct people and communicate with Erica and others. Speaker 0 notes that he, too, was traumatized after learning of Charlie’s death and rushed to be with Erica and the team. - They address the specific allegation that Mikey was on the phone immediately during the incident; they state he was not on the phone but was taking social videos to share with their group chats. He would send updates to Charlie’s social media during the event while the crowd was changing, then, overwhelmed by the noise and shock, he put his fingers in his ears but his phone remained in his hand as he moved away. - They describe the scene as a cordoned-off area with a narrow gap that people used to exit, where Mikey walked briskly or ran as he processed the trauma and continued to direct actions. They reiterate Mikey “turned into a general on a field marshaling the troops.” - Speaker 1 closes by urging readers who propagate narratives attacking Mikey to reconsider, stating that such narratives are bad and gross and a choice that shouldn’t be made.

The speaker explains that in the three months since Charlie Kirk’s murder, they have largely refrained from commenting publicly on the investigation. They say this is not due to lack of care or affection for Charlie, whom they knew well since his teenage years, but because they feel they don’t know more than others and want to avoid missteps given their personal connections to those involved. They name Candace Owens, Blake Neff, and Erica Kirk as people they know well and respect, and emphasize a desire to honor Charlie’s memory by seeking justice without criticizing others’ motives when people are sincerely pursuing the truth. They recount a three-hour conversation with Theo Vaughan during which the topic of Charlie Kirk’s case arose. They state they told Vaughan they do not trust the FBI, clarifying that this statement was not an accusation that the FBI is involved in Charlie’s assassination, and they did not intend to imply such. They acknowledge they like Dan Bongino and Cash Patel and do not believe they would intentionally cover up a murder, but they argue that the FBI, being at the top of the organization, is part of a large bureaucracy where some parts act independently from leadership. Therefore, liking individuals within the organization does not equate to trusting the FBI as a whole. The speaker asserts that, as a lesson of the 2024 election, many of the nation’s largest systems and institutions have rot and require reform. They contend that January 6 was a setup and that the FBI was key to that setup, stating it remains unclear whether everyone involved has been fired or punished. They insist that no American is under moral obligation to believe everything the government tells them, especially institutions with a documented history of wrongdoing, such as the FBI’s alleged crimes, manufacturing crimes, and distorting justice. They emphasize that the job of the FBI is to find out what happened, tell the public how they arrived at conclusions, and convince the public of the outcomes, rather than hiding behind national security or confidential sources. The speaker concludes by committing to avoid talking about topics they do not understand, to state things only as they know them, and to remain skeptical. They stress a duty to skepticism and to seek truth and justice without being swayed by tone or certainty from government officials. They reiterate love for Charlie and a wish for justice, while urging others to maintain scrutiny toward the investigation.

Speaker questions the FBI and mainstream media portrayal of Tyler as a trans kid, lone shooter on a roof, saying he "could probably give you a 150,000 reasons why Israel would benefit from Charlie Kirk being assassinated" but "I can't give you one why Tyler would." He questions the boyfriend angle, noting "we know nothing really about this boyfriend" and that even if he was trans, he mentions "doggy, diddy little style freak pop parties." He cites Raw Alerts, whose operator is "wearing a doggy mask and diapers and into this trans fetish crap." He adds, "This kid didn't seem radicalized. He didn't show any signs of it. There were no posts on social media about it." He asks viewers to comment and argues it’s "mathematically probably impossible for Israel" to be uninvolved, calling it a "demonic state" that "worship Satan" and "bomb children" and "murder journalists." "What about you guys?"

Speaker questions the FBI/media claim that 'Tyler was some type of trans kid, lone shooter on a roof' and says, 'I could actually almost guarantee you that the current government in Israel that is blackmailing the most powerful government in the entire world would have failed, would have fallen had Charlie Kirk continue speaking the way he was speaking.' He adds, 'I can't give you one why Tyler would.' He notes 'Raw Alerts' with 'doggy mask and diapers' and claims the operator is 'on our side fighting to expose corruption.' He states there were 'no posts on social media about it,' and asks, 'What radicalized trans person do you know that didn't leave a memoir that you mean to tell me he was engraving this stuff on-site?' He ends with, 'What about you guys? Drop some comments below.' He asserts, 'Israel, this demonic state that literally seems to worship Satan, bomb children, blow up women and children, murder journalists, assassinated multiple leaders in America already... would benefit from this.'

This transcript describes a discussion with Orthodox friends about Charlie inviting Tucker Carlson. It notes there is nowhere safe for them in the world, and they have an inclination to trust no one, yet Charlie remains patient, engaging in dialogue with Tucker and Candace Owens, while also texting with Orthodox rabbis. The speaker commends Charlie for his patience and dialogue. The speaker responds to an Orthodox brother who claimed Candace is far right and Ocasio-Cortez far left, and that they both hate Jews. The speaker says Candace and AOC appear to operate their influence by pathos and ethos, and apply very little logos. They use pathos and ethos to judge and condemn an entire race of people. This is not framed as a political polarization issue (far right or far left) but as mob rule by emotion and perceived legitimacy void of the pursuit of truth. The speaker asserts that this dynamic is a reason America, for now and hopefully more in the future, is a somewhat safe haven for Jews because it is a republic. A link to a video was provided to illustrate or support this point.

The speakers discuss alleged hidden dynamics within Turning Point and connections to international and ideological forces. Speaker 0 claims that Arizona has long investigated Turning Point, and that conversations within the state finally broke into the public sphere. He says he spoke with Liz Harris, a former Arizona House member, and asserts that Harris told him, “Turning Point's Mossad. Tyler Boyer is Mossad. They're all neocons. They're connected to Mossad.” He says he has the report and a recording of Harris saying this, emphasizing that many people warned him but he wanted to verify for himself. He states that "when Charlie died that was it for me" and that he decided it was time to come out and reveal what he witnessed and participated in, apologizing to the American people. Speaker 1 acknowledges familiarity with Liz Harris and then asks for details about internal communications leaking after Charlie’s death, which allegedly show that he was leaving the Zionist cause and that leadership faced questions about Israel policy. The question is whether Tyler Boyer was explicitly asked about this direction and what his answer was. Speaker 0 describes an incident in Boyer’s office where a female associate asked Boyer, “why are you so against Candace Owens. The Israel cause etcetera.” He says Boyer closed the door, pulled the speaker’s friend in, and told her, “listen, I’m a Zionist. Candace Owens is a black conservative who wants to be relevant in this movement. And she's doing whatever she can at all cause to stay relevant.” He presents this as proof, claiming it is in the text he sent to Stu and that the friend confirmed it in the office encounter. Across the exchange, the core assertions are that Liz Harris labeled Turning Point's leadership as connected to Mossad and neocon interests, specifically naming Tyler Boyer as Mossad; that after Charlie’s death there were internal, leaked communications about Zionist alignment and Israel policy; and that Boyer disclosed a Zionist stance and disparaged Candace Owens during a confrontation in his office, presenting Candace Owens as attempting to stay relevant in the movement.

Charlie Kirk's perspective on Israel was not starting to shift. It had shifted entirely. Israel knew that. Turning Point USA knew that because Charlie was explicit. He wrote of his deep love for Israel. About forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point, as well as Jewish donors and a rabbi that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright. Charlie was done. He said it explicitly that he refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors. Did he express that? Did he also express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back because he was standing up for himself? And then did he, just forty eight hours later, conveniently catch a bullet to the throat before our on stage reunion could happen?

On a Zoom call the night before his death, I was giving Charlie advice for how to message on this issue on his forthcoming campus tour, and he joked, “Josh, I'm gonna mention your book, Israel and civilization, and it's so good.” He referenced a letter to Netanyahu read in June or July; the opening sentence is, “As a Christian, one of my greatest joys in life is making friendships with the Jewish people and defending the state of Israel.” After his death, critics claimed he was turning on Israel, but that letter begins this way: “As a Christian… defending the state of Israel.” “Filth. Okay? Absolute filth. I I don't understand it.” “There was no truth in him.” He says three people claimed Charlie said within twenty four hours he thought they would kill him, and questions Josh Hammer about “the night before.” He warns: “if I get a text message… I will release it instantly. There'll be no place that you can hide.” He sent around a life insurance policy package with “text messages, emails, private communications, videos, and private legal documents.” He says, “If anything happens to me, … they have my explicit permission to release it all, detonate it all, expose all of these people in politics and in the movement who behave like this behind the scenes. It's necessary.” He cites Kanye: “Everything that Kanye said was so real. … Kanye was right” and urges to “leave me alone. Let me say what I believe, you say what you believe. Fight fair.”

From the outset, one of the speakers says there was a sense that the official narrative about the day didn’t add up, expressing that many Americans feel they were being lied to. The major problem they identify with the assassination narrative includes inconsistencies and unanswered questions rather than acceptance of the official story. Speaker 1 recalls being told Charlie Kirk was shot and initially in critical condition, but notes that the video shows an exit wound and movement of Kirk’s shirt that suggests an impact nearby. With extensive experience around gunshot wounds, they say what they saw didn’t make sense. They reference the FBI’s announcement of a shooter and describe a separate incident involving a person on the roof who allegedly disassembled and reassembled a firearm, aligned a scope, fired a cold bore shot, moved to the roof, and then wrapped the rifle up. They mention texts from the shooter that didn’t sound like a typical 22-year-old and state that these observations raise questions. They say asking questions leads to being torn down or accused of holding conspiracy views, and they specify they aren’t claiming “Israel did it,” but insisting the questions about the event “don’t look good.” They raise specific questions: did the security team remove Charlie Kirk’s lapel mic after the incident and give it to someone else; what happened to the SIM card; did someone take the camera behind him; why was the crime scene contaminated and rebuilt. They admit they don’t know what is true but insist the questions deserve answers. They note that once they question, they’re labeled antisemitic, and they say they didn’t even bring up Israel. They emphasize the personal and national significance of the incident. Speaker 0 mentions a claim that Charlie Kirk was portrayed as Superman, with his body supposedly stopping the 30-odd-six bullet, and asks what would have happened if a 30-06 round hit him. Speaker 1 says it would likely blow his head off and leave remnants of the bullet, arguing that they don’t think such remnants have been found yet. They question why the chair and desk were moved and contend that a forensic expert could determine the shot’s origin, insisting they are simply asking questions. If those questions can be refuted, they would stop asking; but they claim they’re not getting any answers beyond “this is what happened” and being told to “shut up.” Speaker 0 adds that telling someone to be quiet amounts to labeling them antisemitic, and that when the trial comes, they will look like a fool. Speaker 1 says that’s a tactic of the left—when you call them out, they label you a name—and that the right is now doing the same to them.

I was shocked and sickened by the reaction of the ghoulish and really repulsive reaction of the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to Charlie's death. Basically made it all about him and all about his country immediately trying to take the energy, the sadness, the grief that people felt over Charlie's murder and redirect it towards support for whatever project he's involved in. Benjamin Netanyahu is not the same as the nation of Israel at all. Bibi is despised by many people in Israel. There are huge divisions within the Israeli government. I mean, are certain parts of the intel world in Israel that do not support some things that Benjamin Netanyahu has done recently. Charlie didn't hate Jews. He loved Jews. He had tons of friends who were Jews. He loved the state of Israel. Loved going there. He did not like B. B. Netanyahu, and he said that to me many times, and he said to people around him many times. He felt that Bibi Netanyahu was a very destructive force. He was appalled by what was happening in Gaza. He was above all resentful that he believed Netanyahu was using The United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country, and that it was shameful and embarrassing and bad for The United States, and he resented it. There's no question that BB's defenders on the internet will call me a liar or a kook, but that's a fact. Enough text messages exist that I think it can probably be verified in pretty short order.

"This is evil. Israel using AI to put words in a dead man's mouth for their own propaganda." "This is the wake up call." "They couldn't stand a voice that didn't sound like theirs, and that's exactly why we have to fight." "Truth's worth the price every single time." "America was built on faith, on freedom, on family." "Don't go quiet." "Don't bend." "Don't give in." "Because this wasn't the end. This was the opening shot of a change that's coming, and it's gonna be for the better." "That is an evil thing to do, especially since Charlie Kirk stopped taking money from Israel and was even turning against them the last few months that he was alive." "So that makes that extra evil Zayo propaganda right there."

I’m going to state this, and I’m going to challenge Turning Point USA executives to issue a very clean statement saying that I am lying if this is not true. About forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point, as well as Jewish donors and a rabbi, that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright. Charlie was done. He said it explicitly that he refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors. Did he express that? Did he also express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back because he was standing up for himself? Just forty eight hours later, a bullet to the throat. Charlie did not die pro Israel. He did not die for Israel. He did not martyr himself as a friend of Israel. The truth is going to win.

The speaker condemns Ian Carroll for making videos that claim Israel is behind conspiracies about Red Lobster, Applebee's, and Burger King, and for a live stream asking, “Where are you Nick? … Why are you with them?” He asks where the evidence is and notes the tendency to attribute almost every event to Israel, stating, “the heuristic seems to be Israel is behind literally everything,” past and future, which he calls ridiculous. He points to a September 7 tweet where Carroll said Charlie Kirk is “working for the Jews that killed Jesus,” and contrasts it with Carroll’s certainty on September 11 that Israel killed him to silence him, questioning what changed in those four days and suggesting Carroll may have ESP or telepathy. He accuses Carroll of grifting, intellectual laziness, and dishonesty, and refuses to be pulled into blaming Israel for killing the number one Israel defender in America. The speaker asserts personal history and credibility, saying, “I’ve been over here. I was at Charlottesville” in 2017, and that in 2019 he led the Gruyper war against Charlie Kirk, labeling Kirk as an “Israel shill.” He claims that from Turning Point’s founding in 2012 to today, the organization has been “owned by Israel and served Israel.” He recounts a June text in which Charlie Kirk told Dinesh D’Souza, “Nick Fuentes is vermin,” and notes the ongoing fight against him for six years, including Kirk’s August statement calling him “anti Semitic garbage” and his refusal to debate. The speaker describes Charlie Kirk’s inner circle and media connections: Kirk’s right-hand man Andrew Colvin comes from Salem Media, a Christian Zionist outlet aligned with Israel, with Melissa Strait having connections to Salem and Prager University and IDF unit 12082. He notes Colvin led a “struggle session about Israel” after a Turning Point SAS conference in July. He claims that when Israel bombed Qatar in contravention of Trump’s foreign policy, Kirk invited Ben Shapiro to present Israel’s position, while Kirk acted as moderator, and on the day Kirk “was shot,” he prepared to defend Israel with his rabbi at Provo as he drafted a book on the Jewish Sabbath. The speaker emphasizes that the person accused of fighting Israel was “the guy that was murdered,” and expresses pity for those who would believe that. He asserts, “I’m right here where I’ve always been, following the facts, following the money, looking at the information,” claiming to be light years ahead of Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, and rejecting the idea that their ideology is about Netanyahu or Israel’s foreign policy, concluding, “No, sorry. Absolutely not. That’s totally ridiculous.”

"This is an actual group chat, which happened two days before Charlie Kirk was assassinated." "There were nine people in total on this chat, including Charlie and Rob McCoy." "Rob McCoy was on this text thread." "just lost another huge Jewish donor. 2,000,000 a year because we won't cancel Tucker. I'm thinking of inviting Candace." "Charlie writes, Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause." "please do not invite Candace. That might feel good short term but it's not good long term."

Addressing chatter about a text chain released by Candace Owens, the screen grab is authentic. He didn’t share publicly because it was private and he didn’t want to betray a friend's trust, but he shared it with some in government since it happened quickly. It took thirty three hours for authorities to get their suspect, and in the first moments they wanted no stone unturned. He says, 'we want justice for Charlie more than anybody else, and no stone unturned.' He notes, 'it was not mine to share publicly.' 'It's been so frustrating to have people blow up about this,' and explains, 'I am an eyewitness to events, and they said, don't comment on things because anything you say can mess that up. I don't want to mess up any trial for the person who did this.'

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 address a group text shared by Kent Owens; the text grab is authentic and, though private, was released to show public frustrations and pursue justice for Charlie. They say they wanted no stone unturned in the first 33 hours of the investigation. As Turning Point USA spokesman, they caution that public statements could affect an ongoing case. Charlie's Israel views are described as nuanced and public: he cared about Israel, read a 700-page history, wanted the Gaza war to end, did not want American troops or Palestinian refugees, saw Hamas as the aggressor, and noted antisemitism rising. A Megyn Kelly clip is cited: "I love Israel. I want Israel to win." Charlie remained defiant, refusing to be cowed into deplatforming Tucker, upholding "free speech be our north star."