No One Deserves to Die for Their Speech
The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a stark reminder that political violence has no place in America.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a devastating moment for our country. Regardless of where one stands politically, this act of violence strikes at the foundation of our shared life together as Americans. Political violence has no place in a free society.
Words Are Not Violence
In recent years, a troubling idea has taken root in our culture: that words can be equated with violence. This confusion is dangerous. Words can challenge, provoke, and even offend. They can sting. But they are not the same as physical harm. To blur that line is to erode the very possibility of free speech.
If disagreement is treated as a form of violence, then silencing opponents becomes easier to justify. And if silencing them is not enough, some will convince themselves that eliminating them is acceptable. That twisted logic leads, step by step, to the kind of tragedy we now mourn.
Disagreement Is Not Enmity
Another lie that fuels political violence is the belief that those who disagree with us are our enemies. They are not. They are our fellow citizens—neighbors, co-workers, classmates, and friends. They may hold views we find deeply wrong, even offensive. But disagreement does not strip them of their dignity or their right to speak.
Free societies thrive on debate. It requires the friction of differing ideas. We sharpen our own beliefs by testing them against the arguments of others. When we forget this, when we demonize those who think differently, politics devolves into tribal warfare. And in tribal warfare, violence is never far behind.
The Path Forward
If America is to endure as a free society, we must make a clear choice: political violence cannot be tolerated. When speech is met with force, freedom itself begins to unravel. Our response to this heinous act must go beyond grief—it must reshape the way we engage one another.
That begins with reaffirming the sanctity of both life and liberty. No idea, no grievance, and no ideology justifies silencing a person with violence. We also need to recover the art of disagreement. Vigorous debate is not a threat to democracy—it is its lifeblood. Citizens must be able to argue fiercely, even passionately, without treating those who differ as enemies.
Civility in public life does not mean the absence of conflict. It means recognizing that persuasion and dialogue are the legitimate tools of change, not intimidation or bloodshed. And it means teaching the next generation that the strength of a free society is measured by the power of its ideas, not by acts of violence.
A Call to Courage and Restraint
Rejecting political violence does not mean retreating from the public square. It means showing up with courage to defend your beliefs, and with restraint to respect the humanity of those who disagree. It requires us to resist the urge to demonize, to answer words with better words, and to protect—even fiercely protect—the right of others to speak, however much we oppose their message.
This is not weakness. It is strength rooted in conviction. It is the hard work of democracy. And it is the only way to ensure that freedom outlives the anger of the moment.