BY MICHAEL GRAHAM

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s brutal assassination, anger and confusion have erupted, not just in the dark corners of unhinged, online, social media lunacy, but in the halls of DC government buildings, taking understandable anger and sadness and twisting it into an anti-Americanism that threatens to fracture and crumble the foundations of this great experiment in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Social media has long been a bastion of viscous, divisive hot takes, dripping with venom and devoid of reason.  Reckless virtual-shouting matches between mostly nameless, faceless combatants – sometimes humans, sometimes bots – rarely if ever result in greater understanding and typically serve only to further divide us and entrench our opposing positions.  With Kirk’s assassination, online rhetoric has reached a fever pitch of dangerous and dehumanizing calls for reprisals against political adversaries.  I am far from qualified to resolve the ills of a poisonous social media culture, especially the online vitriol between the legions of anonymous internet users.  But I have no tolerance for elected officials, their staff, or appointees, whose job it is to serve the people, seizing on our division and a tragic murder to not only further divide us, but to erode the rights endowed to us by our Creator.

Republican Governor Spencer Cox of Utah, who did an admirable job deploying resources and ensuring his State cooperated with federal officials to track down Kirk’s alleged murderer, has spoken eloquently against the viscous political divide festering in our core like a cancer.  During his election campaign, the Governor implored the body politic to “disagree better,” and denounced violence stating, “We will never be able to solve all the other problems, including the violence problems that people are worried about, if we can't have a clash of ideas safely and securely, especially those ideas with which you disagree." (Utah governor, known for ‘disagreeing better,’ calls for calm after Kirk shooting : NPR).  He has denounced “conflict entrepreneurs” like social media companies for their algorithms that “have figured out how to hack our brains, get us addicted to outrage — which is the same type of dopamine, the same chemical you get from taking fentanyl — and get us to hate each other."  (Utah Gov. Cox: Social Media Companies Share Blame in Kirk's Death - Business Insider).  His message recognizes these precarious times and the constant bombardment of outrage and manipulation that we face while he also rightly espouses what truly unites us – principle firmly rooted in American ideals.

Rather than following the Governor’s example, our Federal Executive Branch has chosen the road of “conflict entrepreneurs” who seek to twist a tragedy into an opportunity to suppress and erode our rights as Americans.  Trump has, without evidence, claimed that Kirk was murdered as part of a left-wing conspiracy, asserting that “[t]he radical left has done tremendous damage to the country,” and asserting, “[b]ut were fixing it[,]” (Trump's threat to target 'radical left' after Kirk killing raises fears he's trying to silence foes - ABC News).  Trump has further stated that "[t]hey're already under major investigation.  A lot of the people that you would traditionally say are on the left, already under investigation[.]”  (Vance says 'left-wing extremism' helped lead to Charlie Kirk's killing - ABC News).  This dark example set by the sitting President is bleeding into and infecting the actions of his entire administration.

Trump’s underlings stoke fear, make dangerous assertions, and propose aggressive assaults on our fundamental rights.  Stephen Miller baselessly fearmongered that there "is a vast domestic terror movement,” and the Trump administration will “use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people. It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie's name[.]" Id.  Vice President JD Vance suggested the Government will “go after” “left-leaning” organizations, like the Ford Foundation and George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, without presenting any evidence of their involvement in wrongdoing  (Vance, White House promise to ‘go after’ left-leaning organizations - POLITICO), a blatant attack on the speech rights of these institutions based only on mere speculation.  Pam Bondi threatened to prosecute an Office Depot employee who refused to print a flyer for a Charlie Kirk vigil.  (Pam Bondi threatened to prosecute private employee at a Office Depot for not printing Charlie Kirk vigil flyers).  Marco Rubio stated that he is revoking Visa status of “foreigners who celebrate the death of our fellow citizens.”  (Rubio: US is deporting visa holders who celebrated Kirk death).  With Rubio apparently being the one to define “celebrate”, he grants himself, a government bureaucrat, broad discretion over the lives of law-abiding foreigners that will only serve to further chill speech and dissent.

The latest outrage, the complete removal of Jimmy Kimmel’s late night talk show from broadcast, came after blatant threats from another government bureaucrat and hypocrite, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr.  (After Jimmy Kimmel’s show was suspended, a key question is: Does the FCC have the power to regulate speech? | PBS News).  Carr, a man who once defended all manner of satire from government censorship, has abandoned his principles in service of Trump’s crusade to muzzle his critics.  (FCC Chair Takes Victory Lap After Muzzling Kimmel | The New Republic).  The FCC’s own website states that the organization is limited by First Amendment protections, and that the organization encourages “counter-speech” and “ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some views or expressions may be highly offensive.”  (The FCC and Speech | Federal Communications Commission).  Yet this did not stop the Commissioner from threatening ABC’s broadcasting license over statements that we can all judge for ourselves (Here’s What Jimmy Kimmel Said About Charlie Kirk: The Full Moment), but that I submit could hardly be said to be offensive, but were clearly “counter-speech” to the conventional narrative surrounding Kirk’s alleged murderer.  (Jimmy Kimmel taken off air over Charlie Kirk comments).  There has been discussion of whether the decision to pull Kimmel’s show was the result of internal corporate pressure, and there may be some truth to that assertion (Sinclair's List of Demands for Broadcasting Jimmy Kimmel's Show Again - Business Insider), but those discussions are utterly irrelevant to the government’s shameful and un-American free speech interference.

These accusations and actions appear to be nothing more than pretext, using a violent tragedy to stifle and punish individuals and groups for speech that this administration does not like.  First, it must be said that Political violence is not the exclusive purview of either “side.”  Though it is still early in the investigation, Kirk’s assassin appears to hold leftist positions and may have killed in their name.  (The motive behind Charlie Kirk's killing: What we know and don't know).  Consider, however, one of the country’s most notorious political terrorists, Timothy McVeigh, was a right-wing extremist (Nation’s deadliest domestic terrorist inspiring new generation of hate-filled ‘monsters,’ FBI records show - ABC News), as was the assassin of Minnesota House Democratic Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark.  (Man charged with killing a top Minnesota House Democrat pleads not guilty | CNN).  Despite the Trump administration attempting to delete its own study from the Justice Department’s website, DOJ found that violence was far more likely to be committed by right-wing extremists.  (US justice department removes study finding far-right extremists commit ‘far more’ violence | Trump administration | The Guardian).  Libertarian think tank, Cato Institute, noted that political violence is rare in the United States (a point that deserves highlighting and further discussion), but of the political murders since 1975 (the vast majority of which occurred on 9/11), 11% were committed by right-wing terrorists versus 2% for left-wing terrorists.  (Politically Motivated Violence Is Rare in the United States | Cato at Liberty Blog).  Merely claiming a rise in left-wing violence, without evidence, to justify a government crackdown is dangerous and irresponsible and risks suppressing the rights of all Americans.

Free speech protections are limited to government actions.  If a company no longer wishes to associate with an employee who made comments about Kirk’s assassination that they deem inappropriate, with few exceptions, that company is free to terminate that employee.  Americans angered and saddened by his murder or the way fellow Americans respond to that murder are free to express their hurt and outrage.  But that’s largely where retribution ends.  The Government has no authority to strip the rights, memorialized in our Constitution, of the people it serves.  Such acts are anti-American and spit on the graves of those who fought and died to give us those rights and those who fought and died ensuring that those rights are protected throughout the ages.  We are a unique nation built on principle and value, not on the birthright of a king or the mere seizure of territory.  This generation of Americans stands no greater than our founders because we hold more territory.  Our founders’ genius is enshrined in the government they willed into existence, and we can only hope to live up to their greatness if we protect the ideals that they gifted to us.

When rights are taken from the people, they are stripped from all Americans, not just one political party.  Theodore Roosevelt in defending his criticisms of then-President Woodrow Wilson, due in part to his frustration with Wilson’s failure to prepare the country for entry into World War I, stated, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”  (TR Center - TR Quotes).  To criticize our leaders is not just a right, it is a duty.  My father always advised that we must constantly view our leaders’ words and actions with a jaundiced eye to ensure their intentions and actions serve the best interests of the people.

We will all at some point disagree with this administration, including, I suspect, my fellow citizens who identify as “right.”  In fact, I know it to be so, because I’ve seen some of the President’s most ardent supporters during the 2024 election, like Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz – men with whom I agree on almost nothing – speak out against this Trump administration crackdown on free speech.  On a special recording of his show, Carlson, warning about the dangers of proposed hate speech laws stated that “there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that—ever, and there never will be.”  (Tucker Carlson Urges 'Civil Disobedience' if Trump DOJ Targets Hate Speech - Newsweek).  Cruz compared FCC Chair Carr to a “mafiaso” and called his threats against ABC “dangerous as hell.”  (Ted Cruz compares FCC chair’s threats against ABC to mob tactics | CNN Politics).  I’ve seen bipartisan backlash against Republican Congressman Brian Mast who was forced to withdraw a legislative provision that would have granted Rubio the power to punish citizens deemed to have provided “material support” to terrorist organizations with revocation of that citizen’s passport.  (GOP lawmaker pulls measure to allow Marco Rubio to revoke US passports | Marco Rubio | The Guardian).  I think we can all imagine the dangers of handing that kind of power, power that could be horribly abused when wielded against perceived political enemies, to an executive branch bureaucrat.  If we ever grant such a power, we become a weak, subservient, treasonable public.

It's far too easy, and frankly, a personal failing and weakness, to fall into the trap of allowing our anger to override our reason.  The instinct to lash out and punish and dehumanize “those on the other side” will allow that festering cancer in the body politic to metastasize and rot this nation from the inside out.  Living by principle and the code inherent in our American ideals takes strength.  The battle for ideas must be fought on a playing field that protects our rights, that protects our personhood, and recognizes the humanity inherent in each of us.  Let’s “disagree better.”  Let’s be people of principle.  Let’s live by a code committed to real American values.