The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” However, over the past few weeks following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, this right is being challenged.
Living in the U.S., you are constantly reminded of your constitutional right of free speech. As a kid, any time someone said something I did not like, I would subsequently get mad at them for it and would be reminded of ‘free speech.’ That is to say, this right is deeply ingrained within the minds of U.S. citizens. I have come to realize the right of free speech truly does not mean anything to the government, as I see cases of people being persecuted for simply executing their first amendment rights.
On Sept. 10, right wing political media personality Charlie Kirk was assassinated at one of his infamous ‘prove me wrong’ debates held at Utah Valley University.
Following the assassination of Kirk, a social media witch hunt started targeting those who have apparently made any sort of negative comment about the situation. According to CNN, DC Comic Book writer Gretchen Felker-Martin’s recently released comic book run has now been cancelled after a comment on social media site X, formerly known as Twitter, about Kirk’s death.
“Hope the bullet’s OK” was the post that led to her subsequent firing.
According to KSBW, employees at private establishments such as Freddy’s Frozen Custard and the Carolina Panthers are being fired for commenting on Kirk’s assassination.
In light of these events, we should all wonder why this specific death has led to the alleged prosecution and firing of many individuals, while the same consequences aren’t typically made for differing circumstances, i.e. deaths related to police brutality. I ask myself this question even though I know the answer. Charlie Kirk was a Republican highly entangled within the right wing political system. Even though unconstitutional, the right has made a choice to go after those who opposed Kirk’s views as it is threatening to their political regime.
Typical of our government, our constitutional rights only matter when it benefits them.
No matter your political affiliation, it is not okay to fire people for their own personal opinions on a matter that has nothing to do with their line of work, especially if the speech is not prejudiced against any certain broad people groups. On the matter of this death in particular, it can be interpreted as morally incorrect to comment on his passing, but it is not unconstitutional in any way shape or form to comment. What is objectively and highly unconstitutional is firing people based on their own personal beliefs.
The reasoning by those who are firing individuals for their comments on the death is attributed to the comments being seen as “Radical leftists calling for violence,” or generally the comments being seen as genuine violent threats. I would argue that that is a very profound stretch of the truth. If that were true, the teenagers who were mocking the death of Treyvon Martin by posing face down holding skittles, the 2013 trend ‘Treyvonning’, were not punished anywhere near the level of which those who are commenting on a political assassination, as people commonly do are.
