Being a well-informed and engaged member of society in the year 2025 is very similar to banging your head against a wall 100 times an hour. There is no more nuance in this country, no grappling with the inherent contradicts that come about in a free and liberal country. I struggled for a few hours about whether I should even write something about the past week’s events, because beyond the fact that I am college student whose credibility is questionable, there is basically nothing I can write that will not piss someone off. Of course, writers are bound to anger people, to elicit strong emotions, because good ideas are not easy or simple, they are complex. But right now, people are resistant to being slightly confused, or to being in disagreement, or to even be challenged a little. After thinking about it some more, though, I decided that as an American, who would I be if I did not use a national event as a platform to express my strongly held convictions, no matter how unwanted, or unoriginal they may be. So with that said, today’s post will not be as light-hearted as my typical essay, and while I am sure there will be film refences, the focus is squarely on current events.
Now to start, and to be as clear as possible, I strongly condemn the shooting of Charlie Kirk last week. I abhor violence in all of its forms, and am particularly sickened by gun violence in this country. The idea that a prominent player in politics can easily be shot in broad daylight, with the video of his death then immediately going viral, and conspiracies surrounding his killer popping up faster than the speed of light is truly horrifying. The past week’s event have been a modern Verhoeven-esque nightmare, and one that is becoming all too common. I value human life, and see no situation where we should celebrate the public assassination of anyone, no matter their political leanings or personal faults. Charlie Kirk was not someone I would consider good, he was someone I vehemently disagreed with, and someone who led a movement that I find to be filled with hate and lies. His words and actions violated all of my moral principals, but in his death, I must stand firm in my beliefs: murder is wrong, it is inexcusable, and, less importantly, but still relevant, it is unproductive. No child should have to watch their father die, and there is no wiggle room for me there.
But I do wonder, after I get my condemnations out of the way, what I am allowed to say next? Am I allowed to post some of Kirk’s views, with no commentary, and allow people to judge his legacy? Not according to conservative podcaster Chase Spears, who is working with the website charliesmurderers.com in an effort to get an US Army Lt. Col. fired for doing just that, along with 30,000 other Americans who, allegedly, reacted “inapportaitely”.1 Am I allowed to ponder the impact of Kirk’s work, and question whether the energy he brought into this world made our country better and safer, or if it in fact did the opposite, unfortunately helping to led to his tragic death? Not according to MSNBC, who fired commentator Matthew Dowd for doing just that.2 After this undeniably terrible event, one which has clearly deeply effected the nation, am I allowed to pause for a moment, and attempt to build bridges with people on the other side, in an effort to maybe, just maybe, stop the rising tide of hate? Not according to our Dear Leader, President Trump, who only waited a few hours after the death of his “close friend” to record a video blaming the “radical left,” and vowing to “find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity.”3 Shortly after, the President’s top aide, Stephen Miller, flocked to Fox News to deliver a two minute rant, where he promised to dismantle the entire political left, suggesting he would use RICO charges to go after anyone who he sees as having contributed to this violent act, whether that be the person who shot the gun, or random citizens who have compared Trump’s movement to the Nazis, an act which, supposedly, incites violence.4
Since Kirk’s killing last week, we have seen a chilling crackdown on speech surrounding the event. Clemson University, a public land-grant university, posted a statement to twitter laying out their interpretation of the first amendment, saying, in part: “…that right [freedom of speech] does not extend to speech that incites harm or undermines the dignity of others.“ While Clemson does not have a law school, I would hope as a tax-payer funded institution, they are aware that free speech does in fact extend to words which incite harm or undermine the dignity of others. While the oft-repeated adage that you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded building is certainly true, the complexities and nuances involved with that case often get lost. The fact of the matter is, there are very few things you can say in this country that do not fall under protected speech, and while I find the celebration of someone’s death to be a misguided and gross way to react to news, it is firmly within the bounds of the First Amendment. Speech must have not only the intent to cause harm but the likelihood of that harm must be very high. Even then, the government has to present an incredibly strong case to find someone guilty…it basically never happens. Screaming “fire” in a crowded theater obviously has intent and likelihood…saying “I am glad someone died” does not. But, according to the current regime, when we talk about speech inciting violence, a sitting President encouraging his supporters to storm the Capitol is simply the people exercising their right to petition the government, but calling the policies of the current administration “fascistic” is a call to arms.
What has been made abundantly clear in the past few days, if it somehow wasn’t already, is the tale of two countries. One country is still the shining city on a hill, a beacon of freedom, self-expression, and opportunity. But for those who dare question the leaders of that country, for those who do not see their own American values represented in their policies, for even those who tow the line carefully and slip up just once, they are living in a very different, much darker, much less free, authoritarian country. These two countries are not just separated by the laws which bind and protect (or don’t) their citizens, but also reality itself. One side, following the shooting, called for war against any and all whom they disagree with, spread conspiracy theories about the identity of the shooter that make Oliver Stone look coherent, and confidently declared that all who dissent against the regime are directly responsible for this crime. The other side, as expected, immediately condemned the murder, suggested ways to stop further gun crimes, and rightfully called out all those who were celebrating. But, according to Conservative America, the Democrats were partying in the streets, cheering on the killing and asking for more. According to Conservative America, the liberals have spent decades policing speech and engaging in acts of “cancel culture,” but only one side is currently compiling a database of anyone who said something even slightly off-color about Kirk. There are two different reality separating our two countries: one based in fact, and one based in lies.
It is also incredibly clear, and has been since our country’s founding, that the law does not protect everyone, just as it does not bind everyone. If speech is the same as violence, then what am I allowed to say? Am I allowed to say that the people, when they find their form of government to be destructive, have a right to abolish it? Can I say that not only is it their right, but in fact, following a long train of abuses and usurpations it is their duty? Right now, I am really not sure. Even just writing this is putting me at some level of risk. It is a low level, I admit that, but the reality is in the past 5 days countless people have been harassed, fired, and doxed simply for speaking their mind. As the writer of a very small blog, I have little fear that this essay, which itself is hardly inflammatory, will be picked up by trolls online. But the fact remains that it is not only possible, it is being encouraged by those in power. If Stephen Miller and his ilk get their way, my words will not be legal. They will not be protected. This is not an exaggeration, nor a dramatic outburst, this is the reality as I see it. Miller has made it clear what he wants, and calling it out is not hysterical.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed“
- Thomas Jefferson, in a quotation which may soon be illegal.
President Trump Delivers Remarks on Charlie Kirk (this video was clearly touched up with AI…just saying).