[ad_1]
A South African music executive whose visa was revoked over his post about late conservative activist Charlie Kirk told Newsweek he believes the revocation was a “gross violation” of freedom of speech.
Why It Matters
The U.S. State Department announced on Tuesday that the visas of several individuals accused of celebrating Kirk’s assassination were revoked. The announcement intensified debate about the limits of free speech, as well as whether the government can limit immigration based on speech and expression.
Kirk, the co-founder of the conservative student organization Turning Point USA, was fatally shot during his American Comeback Tour event at Utah Valley University on September 10. Police later arrested suspect Tyler Robinson. The 22-year-old has been charged with aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, two counts of obstruction of justice, two counts of witness tampering, and commission of a violent offense in the presence of a child.
What To Know
Nota Baloyi, a South African music executive, was among those who lost their visas for their Kirk-related posts. He said he believes the decision to revoke his visa violated his free speech rights.
“It was a gross violation of the virtues that America espouses to the world as defenders of the free world and the paragons of virtue when it comes to free speech,” Baloyi told Newsweek on Wednesday.
The State Department announced this visa would be revoked in a post on X, in which the department said the United States “has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans.”
The thread included a screenshot of a post made by Baloyi, though it removed identifying information.
The post read: “Neanderthals can’t have their cake & eat it… This weekend they went openly anti-black racist & now they’re hurt that the racist rally ended in attempted martyrdom? Charlie Kirk won’t be remembered as a hero. He was used to astroturf a movement of white nationalist trailer trash!”
Baloyi told Newsweek he initially found out about the revocation on October 9 and was at first concerned, as the email notifying him didn’t mention the post.
“I was concerned that it might have something that maybe I had done wrong during my trip in the U.S. that led to its termination,” he said. The State Department’s announcement that the revocation was because of his Kirk post was something of a “relief,” because it was a “rather innocuous reason.”
Baloyi said his last trip to the U.S. was due to a threat on his life.
He said he travels to the U.S. on a B1/B2 visa for work purposes but was not in the country when he learned of the revocation. He plans to reapply for the visa and wants to persuade the State Department to change its mind.
In a post on X, Baloyi apologized “to all those that felt my post was insensitive & ill-timed in any context.” He deleted the original post and said he condemns political violence.
“I’m an advocate for free speech much like Charlie Kirk was famous for & as a Christian with conservative leanings, I am a supporter of President Trump,” he wrote, adding that he does “not always agree with either Charlie Kirk nor Donald Trump,” which is why he disagrees with this decision.
What People Are Saying
Representative Ben Cline, a Virginia Republican, on X: “Being in the United States on a visa is a privilege, not a right. The cancellation of a visa or green card falls within the executive discretion of @SecRubio. Those who celebrate or incite violence have NO place in our country.”
Conservative attorney Mike Davis, on X: “Foreigners who celebrate the assassination of an American have no business being in America. They can go to hell. In the meantime, they can go home.”
Journalist Billy Binion, on X: “Asking without snark: Does anyone think the federal government would be deporting people for making gross comments about a leftist? The answer isn’t hard to figure out, which tells you what you need to know.”
Gregg Nunziata, a conservative lawyer and former Department of Justice official, on X: “Making visas conditional on speech is a bad look for our country and ultimately harmful to the national interest.”
What Happens Next
The decision to revoke these visas reflects the ongoing efforts to scrutinize immigrants and visa holders based on factors such as their speech.
[ad_2]