Beginning this one is a bit sketchy. It comes in the wake of the assassination of prominent free-speech advocate Charlie Kirk. He paid the ultimate price for speaking his mind. And in no way should anyone condone such an act—a response to differing ideas so despicable that it should never be tolerated by any ideology.
But here is the even trickier part: hordes of people celebrated the death of Kirk. Educators, employees, and influencers have posted some deplorable comments simply because they disagreed with him. Most of us—whether left, right, center, or unengaged—recoil at the thought of someone cheering on a killing, the silencing of a voice. Afterall, nobody is REQUIRED to ride the Charlie Kirk bandwagon. The natural reaction is to want those voices silenced or punished for exercising their right to free speech, especially if they are insensitive or intolerant enough to welcome such an atrocious act.
And now it gets stickier. If we truly believe in the rights to free speech, then we should not necessarily call for punishments of insensitive speech, however vile we may find it. The painful part of free speech is protecting it. I remember a civics class in high school, learning that free speech isn’t there to protect the ideas we agree with. Its function is to protect the opinions we disagree with. Of course, that protection ends with any calls to violence or harm to others—period.
While this may seem a dichotomy, there is also a price to free speech: one is free to say what one pleases, but sometimes that comes with consequences. Remember, the First Amendment is Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. But should we, as citizens, call for the silencing of uncomfortable statements? Cancel culture peaked not too long ago, and the majority of us didn’t like it. If an educator celebrates Kirk’s death in the course of their job, then yes, that calls for dismissal. But if they post such commentary on their personal social-media platform, I am not certain it is cause for termination, regardless of how unacceptable I may find the sentiment. That goes for any employee of any company as well. Employees should also keep in mind that they are, whether active or not, ambassadors for their employers. Behavior and character reflect on the brand—most especially in this day of social media.
Still, much of the condition of free speech in the twenty-first century is that it is enjoyed from the safety of social media. Half of what many people share politically comes from the protection of anonymity or from thumbing opinions into a smartphone while sitting alone at home. The majority of what is being posted would never survive a face-to-face discussion. One-sided conversations are easy; human interactive discourse is hard. Social media offers no control rod of in-person conversation with a dissenter.
Where does this leave us?
It is obvious—and widely acknowledged—that we, as a society, nationally and globally, are not in a good place. In moments like this, it is easy to gravitate toward sympathetic choruses, to react in anger at voices we despise, and to march them into the square for retribution. But free speech is fragile, and we need to take a beat. If, in blind rage, we silence those who offend us, we risk building a world where speech is permitted only when it pleases the majority—whichever majority happens to be in power. A man was killed for exercising his right to speak; the worst tribute we could pay him is to respond by shrinking that right for everyone else.
There is a line between speech in a private capacity and speech in a public role. When someone speaks as a teacher in front of students, or as an anchor representing a network, their words carry institutional weight. In that context, consequences may be fair. But when speech is made in private life—at home, among friends, or on a personal social feed—the standard should be higher before we call for punishment. Otherwise, the boundary between one’s private voice and professional role erodes, and soon every word we utter becomes a liability.
