Free speech took a bullet in Utah

Charlie Kirk’s assassination underlines how fragile free speech has become

Interview requests

The tragic murder of U.S. conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10 made international headlines last week.

Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, a right-leaning non-profit organization, was speaking at a public debate at Utah Valley University when he was fatally shot on stage in front of an estimated 3,000 people. It was a political assassination that took the life of an intelligent, well-spoken 31-year-old man with a young wife and family-and a strong Christian faith. He accomplished a great deal in a short period of time, but there was so much more he deserved to witness and experience with his family, friends and loved ones.

I didn’t know Kirk personally, but he and I followed each other on X/Twitter. He initiated it after an op-ed I wrote supporting free speech and enhancing intellectual discourse some years ago. We exchanged pleasantries and nothing further.

It appears that we shared the exact same viewpoint on this important issue.

Free speech is the defence of ideas that are either objective (grounded in fact and reason) or objectionable. We must support views that appear right to us, and tolerate views that appear wrong to us. Free speech must be a two-way street or else an individual’s ability to engage in intellectual discourse and debate will be severely limited and, in turn, less free.

Here’s an example. I agreed with Kirk’s positions on various matters and disagreed with others. If he ever briefly glanced at anything else I ever wrote or said, he would have likely felt the same way. There would have been an immediate recognition of similarities and differences in our opinions. An option to engage in a friendly and civil debate existed. At the very least, we would agree to disagree and move on to other matters.

That’s the way it should be if you truly believe in liberty, democracy and freedom. Alas, that’s not what is happening in the United States and most western democracies.

We’ve witnessed a gradual breakdown in conversations between the political left and right. Civil debate—the ability to understand and tolerate different viewpoints—is fast becoming a lost art. Words like “Nazi,” “fascist,” “communist,” “far right” and “far left” are often tossed around to dismiss those who simply think differently, without any regard for meaning or historical context. The result is that some people become so triggered that family, friends and neighbours now avoid talking politics, current events, religion, family and anything else considered to be mildly controversial in nature.

Kirk did the opposite. His passion and willingness to speak respectfully with those who vehemently disagreed with him kept the lines of communication open. He didn’t yell, shout down or attack his opponents and critics. He gave them ample time to speak their minds and defend a position to the best of their ability. In turn, he would counter their positions in a reasonable, rational manner with intelligence, facts and logic.

Few did it nearly as well, and even fewer were able to do it on a consistent basis.

In fact, I would never have believed that someone like Kirk would have been the target of a political assassination. His views may have been controversial to some people, but his ethics, morals, convictions and sense of decency and civility should have kept him out of harm’s way. That’s what makes this terrible incident so frustrating and heartbreaking.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox revealed that Kirk’s alleged shooter, Tyler Robinson, was romantically involved with his roommate, who is “transitioning from male to female.” He also appears to have a “leftist ideology” in spite of his parents being Republicans. It remains unclear if these were the reasons for the attack or if something else is connected. Regardless, the shooter’s inability to respect Kirk’s freedom of speech appears to be what triggered this insane decision to take an innocent life.

What has been the reaction to this terrible incident? Many conservative thinkers and Republican politicians have written moving posts and statements, including U.S. President Donald Trump’s powerful address. Some prominent Democrats like former U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who disagreed with Kirk on most political, economic and social issues, crafted some fine remarks, too.

Alas, some far-left screwballs and people who should have known better have openly celebrated Kirk’s murder. Quite a few have been fired for making these crackpot statements and disgusting remarks. That’s their own fault. The freedom to support and defend political speech is one thing, but praising a political assassination is beyond the pale. Neither the public nor private sector would ever tolerate this, in spite of what senior industry leaders may have personally thought about Kirk’s ideas and political ideology.

What is the future for free speech and intellectual discourse in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s death? That isn’t easy to say. We can only hope for the best and pray that sanity will prevail in the end.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.