Free Speech, Violence, and the Line We Just Crossed

September 10, 2025 — 14:55

I just got a message from one of my instructors saying Charlie Kirk was shot today in Utah. I had to ask who he was, because I don’t keep a scoreboard of famous names. But I do know the way the man talks. Clear. Calm. Common sense. The kind of conversation where you can disagree without being disagreeable.

From what I’ve seen reported, he was speaking at Utah Valley University when a single shot hit him in the neck. As I write this, I don’t know if he’s alive or not. That uncertainty is part of why I’m writing right now.

The trend that should scare everyone

There’s a growing sickness: “I don’t like what you’re saying, so I’ll shut you up.” That’s not debate. That’s not protest. That’s violence. We’ve watched the temperature rise—one incident after another—until people start thinking political arguments are settled with a muzzle flash.

We have a First Amendment for a reason. It doesn’t grant permission to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, and it sure doesn’t give anyone the right to shoot people because they don’t like the words coming out of their mouth. Disagree all day long. That’s America. But disagreement is not a green light for assassination attempts.

Right vs. wrong (the part we shouldn’t need to say)

Pick a creed, or pick none—most folks still carry a simple inner compass that says murder is wrong. You don’t need a theology degree to know that. You just need a conscience and a little courage.

Where did we go off the rails?

We’ve had political violence in this country before. We’re not naïve about that. But the normalization of it—the shrug, the excuse, the rush to justify because the target wasn’t “our side”—that’s new and it’s poison.

Meanwhile, the regular American—the one who gets up, goes to work, tries to keep the lights on and the kids fed—he’s the one who loses a country when we accept this madness as normal.

What I know about Kirk (and why it matters)

I’ve watched enough of Charlie Kirk to know his style: steady tone, pointed questions, and no need to shout. Agree with him or not, that model—a hard conversation without threats—is the only way we pull back from the cliff.

I’m not going to turn this into a partisan scream. That’s useless. I’m pointing at the line: violence to silence speech is wrong. Full stop. If we can’t agree there, nothing else we argue about will matter.