The assassination of Charlie Kirk is both a personal tragedy and a threat to the practice of free speech. Both his supporters and his detractors should promote freedom of speech by adopting his practice of actively engaging his philosophical opponents in the spirited, vigorous, but nonetheless civil exchange of views and thereby strengthen our freedom of speech for all, regardless of who believes what.
Perhaps none of the rights guaranteed in our Constitution is more basic and fundamental than freedom of speech. It is through this freedom that all other political questions can be debated and explored.
I’m not a free speech absolutist. I think some forms of speech should be penalized or suppressed, including libel, slander, child pornography, and incitements to violence or panic. One should not be allowed to shout “fire” in a crowded theater unless, of course, there is an actual fire.
But with these exceptions, freedom of speech should be preserved, no matter what views are expressed. To weaken protection for some creates a precedent by which free speech protections for others may someday be weakened as well. To suppress the Ku Klux Klan’s freedom of speech, for example, could set a precedent by which the rights of the NAACP could also be suppressed. Therefore, as a former member of the Stephenville City Council, the Erath County Republican Party Executive Committee, and the Tarleton faculty, and as the author of this column, I have supported the free speech rights of the Ku Klux Klan, the NAACP, gay Tarleton students, and Colin Kaepernick, since to take away the rights of any of these groups or people would make it easier to take away anyone and everyone else’s rights as well, mine included.
Unfortunately, some—presumably leftists, although many right-wing crazies also disliked Charlie Kirk because they thought he was insufficiently nutty—have cheered or at least accepted with equanimity, his heinous murder. They’re either too stupid to understand that to suppress one person’s freedom of speech is to endanger everyone’s freedoms, or so evil as to think murder is an acceptable means of suppressing views they don’t like. Moreover, they don’t seem to grasp that what goes around comes around. Their rationales for their repellent attitudes may someday be used to justify their persecution by others as well.
Of course, most left-leaning activists share with Charlie Kirk’s supporters the sense of horror at his demise. They say they dislike his views, but the murder was horrible and totally unjustified. And they’re well within their rights to say so. After all, in expressing opposition—and even revulsion—at Charlie Kirk’s views, they’re simply taking advantage of the exact same First Amendment right to free speech that Charlie Kirk so brilliantly used.
But freedom of speech for all may be jeopardized if fear of more violence makes activists afraid to speak out, or if government at whatever level decides to limit freedom of speech—especially speech attacking the government—in the name of promoting public safety.
Fortunately, Utah’s great governor, Spencer Cox, a rational Republican who’s giving us a master class in responsible crisis management, can serve as a role model for political leaders who want to “dial back” the heat of activists’ rhetoric without limiting their right to speak anyway. And we can take heart from the efficiency with which state and local law enforcement, with help from the FBI (and also with the help of the father of the suspect in custody), cracked the case.
However, the greatest contribution to the protection of freedom of speech can be made by both Charlie Kirk’s supporters and his philosophical opponents. Activists of whatever persuasion should copy Charlie Kirk’s practice of publicly expressing his views and inviting others to “prove him wrong” through spirited, vigorous, but civil debate. Habits usually become stronger with practice over time. To emulate Charlie Kirk’s exercise of freedom of speech, regardless of the particular issues under discussion, will strengthen this habit and thus the freedom for everyone to engage in civil civic debate.
So: Be Like Charlie.
Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville since 1987 and taught politics and government at Tarleton for 36 years, retiring in 2023. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990-2024). He was Mayor pro-tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Stephenville
Economic Development Authority since 2018 and as chair of the Erath County Appraisal District’s Appraisal Review Board since 2015. He is also a member of the Stephenville Rotary Club, the Board of Vestry of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, and the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts’ Pecan Valley District. Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.
Be the first to comment