In his argument to the court, USD art professor Dr. Michael Hook, through his lawyer Jim Leach or Rapid City, makes this really important argument about the public value of his commentary on Charlie Kirk’s shooting:
Professor Hook’s speech deals with profound and timely public issues: Who was Charlie Kirk? What is his legacy? Should we applaud or decry what he promoted? How should we react to his murder? How does the reaction to his murder compare with reaction to the recent murders of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman, and the attempted murders of Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette Hoffman? How does it compare with the reaction to the shootings at Evergreen High School in Colorado that occurred the same day? Or with all the previous school shootings? How does it compare with the decision to pardon all the people who assaulted police officers on January 6, 2021, to try to overthrow an election? What lessons should we take to heart from these questions? How should these questions, and their answers, inform what we say and do? [Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Phillip Michael Hook v. Tim Rave, Sheila K. Gestring, and Bruce Kelley, Case No. 4:25-cv-04188, United States District Court of South Dakota, Southern Division, 2025.09.23, pp. 8–9].
Instead of taking such swift headhunting offense, Governor Rhoden and Speaker Hansen should have engaged the public in a discussion of those very important issues.
In calling for Dr. Hook’s dismissal, Governor Rhoden said “We need more Charlie Kirks on campus and less hatred like this.” Really, Larry? We need more people on campus saying things like this?
Mr. Kirk was a public figure. In 2016, he established a “Watchlist” of allegedly “leftist” university teachers that “Made Some Professors’ Lives a ‘Living Hell.’” Complaint Ex. 1. He decried the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as “awful.” Complaint Ex. 2 at 10. He said that Catholic charities “are one of the biggest reasons why we have the open border crisis on the southern border,” and that they “train the sex traffickers how to smuggle the women across the border.” Complaint Ex. 2 at 11. He called the Civil Rights Act an “anti-white weapon.” Complaint Ex. 2 at 11. He claimed that FBI agents executing a search warrant at Mar-A-Lago were “doing the work that brown shirts would do. That’s how you get Auschwitz.” Complaint Ex. 2 at 11. He alleged that federal employees are “worthless parasites.” Complaint Ex. 2 at 13. And on and on and on and on. Complaint Ex. 2 at 8 to 19 [Plaintiff’s Memorandum, 2025.09.23, pp. 10–11].
Dr. Hook doesn’t argue in court about the validity of Kirk’s hateful and vile statements. Hook instead contends, with far greater equanimity and fealty to the Constitution than Governor Rhoden and Speaker Hansen express, that the First Amendment protects Kirk’s statements as much as it protects Hook’s response to them:
Whether Mr. Kirk’s statements were true is irrelevant. Mr. Kirk was a public figure speaking about matters of public and political concern. So Professor Hook’s Facebook posts about Kirk were about matters of public concern. They are entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection. Speech that can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community” involves matters of public concern. Connick v. Myers, supra, 461 U.S. at 146. Whether speech is—in the view of some—“inappropriate” or “controversial” is “irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 387 (1987). [Plaintiff’s Memorandum, 2025.09.23, p. 11].
Hook also notes that his speech is far less dangerous than the speech of another guy whom Rhoden and Hansen love who went to Charlie Kirk’s funeral to promote hatred and brag about himself:
Professor Hook’s speech pales in comparison to the speech of the President of the United States, who regularly praises and encourages political violence against his real and perceived enemies. Memorandum Ex. 2 at 1-6. The President’s threats have real-world consequences, including on prosecutors and judges, yet he keeps making them. Memorandum Ex. 2 at 6-7 (“within minutes of his attacks, his acolytes respond. . . [leading to] dozens of potentially violent threats directed at [Georgia prosecutor Fani] Willis and her family”). Judges in the President’s cases “have faced persistent threats to their personal safety, including ‘swatting’ calls directed at their homes and a racist voicemail threatening murder.” Memorandum Ex. 2 at 7. The President’s comments about right-wing political violence have been mild at best. Memorandum Ex. 2 at 20-24. And he pardoned everyone who attacked the Capitol and its police officers to capture and hang the Vice-President on January 6, 2021.
By contrast, Professor Hook never has and never would suggest or promote violence as a solution to anything. His post angered the wrong people: Governor Rhoden, Speaker Hansen, the Board of Regents, and some who share their political views. But the state may not punish speech it dislikes. “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.” NRA of America v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 180 (2024). This is not a novel idea. “Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ against a third party ‘to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment.” NRA of America v. Vullo, id., quoting Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 67 (1963). So Professor Hook’s Facebook posts are protected by the First Amendment [Plaintiff’s Memorandum, 2025.09.23, pp. 13–14].
Dr. Hook posed valid questions about the merits of a public figure’s speech and conduct and the reactions of public figures to violence in our society. Governor Rhoden, Speaker Hansen, and the Board of Regents sought to punish Dr. Hook for asking questions that they apparently don’t want us to discuss, perhaps because they don’t like what that discussion might reveal about their favored political figures.