Imagine my surprise when I found myself in total agreement this week with Vice President JD Vance.
Vance, assuming the role of podcast host, took on the topic of the public’s reaction to the assassination of activist Charlie Kirk.
“When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out,” Vance told listeners on the slain activist’s podcast Monday.
For sure.
As Americans, the First Amendment allows us, and even compels us to publicly say what we want, no matter who’s talking, presidents or fellow peons.
Vance went off the rails after that, insisting that the public help the government identify, dox and punish people who he and other U.S. government officials think said unsavory or unsatisfactory things about Kirk’s cruel assassination.
It’s now opened a grim new chapter in America’s free speech debate, and possibly, the final chapter.
I’m afraid for so many people. I’m afraid for the nation. I’m afraid for my family and myself.
Kirk made a career as a provocateur with his inflammatory rhetoric. He has long been lionized by his allies and supporters as a warrior for unfettered expression, fighting against political correctness and liberal values.
But now, the Trump administration and its allies have launched a campaign not to protect speech, but to punish what they deem politically incorrect. They’ve worked to dox and fire teachers, threaten immigrants and weaponize their nearly hysterical outrage against those they tag as political opponents.
So much for Trump’s announcement earlier this year that, “free speech is back,” and on Inauguration Day signing an executive order “Restoring Freedom Of Speech And Ending Federal Censorship.”
None of this is the defense of free speech. It is its destruction.
The Bill of Rights was created to set the United States apart from regimes, rulers and despots that punished public discourse. This nation has been defined by the First Amendment. The framers knew that a free press and the right to speak without fear of government reprisal were the bedrock of self-government.
These freedoms exist precisely to protect the nation’s dissenters, contrarians and gadflies, just like Kirk, who irritate those in power. The moment government begins criminalizing what is said, we cease to be a free republic.
Kirk embodied that principle. He provoked, insulted and inflamed. He thrived in the marketplace of good ideas and bad that the Constitution safeguards.
And although many people despised his views, neither the righteous nor the wrong-headed could dispute his right to express them.
It is a sick irony that the same movement Kirk championed is now working to silence those who dare to speak against him in death.
It’s hardly news that the nation’s social media scene has become overwhelmed with caustic, toxic, heartless messaging that goes far beyond the civil norm most people use to guide their lives, including refraining from speaking ill of the newly dead.
But free speech is the best way for free nations to admonish rude and crude public behavior, not the tactics used in Russia, Iran and China.
Only the most repressive nations punish citizens for their words. Authoritarian regimes from Moscow to Beijing enforce loyalty tests by criminalizing dissent, doxxing opponents and stripping them of their jobs or freedom for opinions made public.
That the United States government is now veering toward such practices should horrify every American, regardless of political affiliation.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s public celebration of airline employees being disciplined for online comments is not a measure of freedom. It’s strategic coercion.
Escalating all this to insist, without any proof, that “radical left” individuals and groups are directly linked to the assassination is appalling and spine-chilling.
Attorney General Pam Bondi joined Trump Tuesday in blaming “left-wing radicals” for the shooting and said “they will be held accountable,” the Associated Press reported. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said there was an “organized campaign that led to this assassination.”
Keep in mind that Trump considers almost every Democratic governor, state lawmaker and member of congress a “left-wing radical,” including special counsel Jack Smith and Hillary Clinton.
Trump’s casual admission that political adversaries are already under investigation should startle anyone who values democratic norms. When the State Department threatens to revoke visas because of speech, it betrays the very ideals America has long claimed to export.
The First Amendment’s true test has always been the protection of unpopular speech. Defending someone’s right to praise kitties or mourn the death of a beloved actor requires no courage. Defending the repugnant, offensive tweet or cruel comment and tasteless joke, that is the essence of constitutional protection of speech.
Adam Goldstein of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression made it clear: “The only time you’re really supporting free speech is when it’s unpopular.”
That’s why this moment is so dangerous. The Trump administration has seized on Kirk’s death to create a societal wedge. By framing dissenting or crude commentary as complicity in the assassination, they blur the line between speech and violence.
By demanding firings and investigations, they cloak constitutional liberties as punishable offenses.
Their outrage is so frenzied and off-base, that it makes it clear this is more about deflection than defense of civility.
The truth is that Trump’s second administration has begun to stagger under mounting failures.
His immigration crackdowns have triggered deep concern, even among the MAGA faithful and drawn international condemnation.
His economic policies have done nothing to ease inflation for working families, and, as every credible expert has pointed out, stand to make the cost of living worse.
Abroad, his foreign policy has alienated allies while empowering rivals.
At home, Trump’s divisive rhetoric has deepened polarization to a near-breaking point, even among allies who want to see the Epstein files no matter how much Trump doesn’t want them to.
In this climate, a convenient distraction is invaluable. Rallying the base against professors, employees and pundits who dared to express contempt for Kirk offers a ready-made target. Trump loves promoting the fictional drama of “an enemy within.”
All this shifts the narrative from failures of governance to a spectacle of grievance, outrage and punishment. And for Trump, grievance politics has always been his tactic for survival.
But this political scheme is catastrophic. To criminalize expression is to hollow out the very foundation of the American republic. To turn employers and universities into enforcement arms of political orthodoxy is to abandon free thought and pluralism. To let government officials dictate which opinions are tolerable is to succumb to authoritarianism.
Americans don’t have to condone tasteless remarks about Kirk’s death to recognize the right to make them. We need not agree with Trump’s critics to acknowledge their constitutional protections. Free speech is not contingent on patriotism or politeness. It is absolute. Once surrendered, it will not return.
The crisis is not what people said about Kirk. The real crisis is a government increasingly willing to punish speech at all.
Follow @EditorDavePerry on BlueSky, Threads, Mastodon, Twitter and Facebook or reach him at 303-750-7555 or dperry@SentinelColorado.com
After 4 years of seeing the Biden administration completely suppress all dissenting voices as disinformation and attempt to lock up, remove from the ballot and even invite less than stable minds to assassinate their primary rival, Democrats have no business complaining about restrictions on freedom of speech. You are mistaken, the “end of America” came about when the left created a cult of assassination to silence their opponents. Our civil war will begin when some less-than-stable “right-winger” thinks “you kill one of ours, we kill one of yours.” You should be writing about a complete end to all political violence and take responsibility for what the left has started. Marxist revolutions have always begun with violence.
MAGA has one side – theirs – and it always applies! My husband was asked by a MAGA if he’s a patriot. Of course and he’s a Democrat! Not according to MAGA; must be a Republican. Can’t convince them!
With MAGA it’s their way or the highway. A Trump supporter asked my husband if he was a patriot. Of course and a Democrat. No Way! Every conversation with this person ends the same – total frustration.
Dave, you missed again. No one is talking about arresting anyone for speech. That is what the First Amendment guarantees. What is happening now is employers are assessing comments from people who glorify and endorse assassination of political opponents. They are then deciding whether that employee represents the vision of the organization. If not, they let that person walk out the door – permanently. The person is still free, just unemployed.