In the wake of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk’s death, a wave of opinions and commentaries have broken out across social media platforms, news sites and talk shows. The conclusions are far reaching – supporters and adversaries of Kirk commend the way he welcomed civic debate, while others condemn the mode by which he did it.
The deeper you dive into the public’s responses, the more apparent it becomes that every argument can be boiled down to one issue – free speech.
It’s a highly contentious topic, yet free speech is a cornerstone to who we are as a nation.
It is sickening that a human life was taken for exercising a First Amendment right. And for that, America needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror and question why murder has so often been used as a mode to silence opposing opinions.
Because, this is not the first time someone has been killed or threatened due to their political views: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King… But, today, the killings have become almost commonplace. Take the assassination of Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, or Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home getting set on fire. President Donald Trump has also survived a couple assassination attempts.
Cancelling, slandering, firing and prosecuting are also actions of silencing that have been taken against individuals for speaking their mind. For instance, Jimmy Kimmel was suspended from ABC for a period of time due to comments made in the aftermath of Kirk’s death.
In moments of crisis where emotions run high, criticism matches the pace. And silencing criticism is a suppression of free speech.
But political violence, along with a culture quick to cancel or troll, leaves very little room for criticism to operate as it should – as an expression of First Amendment rights. To be clear, those who exercise free speech should rightfully anticipate criticism and even suppression from those who disagree, but the First Amendment prohibits the government from playing that censorship role.
Institutions like universities and legacy news organizations should be the market place to exercise free speech without shaming, death threats or censoring. However, we’ve seen a horrifying trend against the exercise of free speech at the very places that should act as its safeguard.
Kirk’s assassination at Utah Valley University was the tipping point, the culmination of years of free speech being morphed into preferred speech which favors, and in many cases limits narratives, reporting and learning toward a certain bias. Like legacy news organizations, universities are too often populated by like minded, partisan activists, who are more interested in indoctrination, influencing narratives and stifling dissenting voices.
The institutions meant to be the town square for free speech, such as legacy news organizations and universities, have turned into the culprits of “preferred speech.”
It is within each individual’s power to disagree and to express personal opinions. Disagreement is okay, it’s healthy even. The end goal of fruitful civic dialogue should be to seek truth and understanding, not to pursue a particular political party winning the argument.
Whether or not you agree with Kirk’s political stance, or the way he debated, public discourse would benefit from taking a page from his playbook, and being willing to open up conversations to opposing views. Kirk toured college campuses with that intention in mind – to welcome those with contrasting opinions to the front of the line for debates he titled, “Prove Me Wrong.”
Slowly but surely, we’re going to lose all ability to engage in civil discourse. Our freedom to express our opinions is something we need to protect at all costs.
The Coronado News welcomes letters to the editor. Submit letters, no longer than 400 words, to newsroom@thecoronadonews.com.
