Imagine you saw a good friend, and he looked really sad. You ask, “What’s wrong, friend?” He responds, “My brother just died. He was murdered, and I just feel numb!” Would you:
- a) Express your condolences and shock
- b) Say “I’m sorry” and sit and talk with your friend
- c) Just give them a hug, and say “words fail me!” or
- d) Explain that you had never met his brother, didn’t know him, and thus don’t feel that much compassion.
Any normal person sees responses a, b, and c as variations on compassion: suffering with a friend, because that friend is suffering. Any normal person sees response d as practically sociopathic.
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
— John Donne, English poet
Donne got it right. Now that’s not to say we all don’t experience grief differently, based on the circumstances. I trust you feel more emotion about the death of a close family member than that of a distant one, let alone a complete stranger. We also feel differently about different deaths. We might feel more emotion about a promising teenager taken from us too early, as opposed to an old man who led a long and happy life. That’s just being human, after all. But that’s not what I’m talking about here.
What does it say about you when you revel in the fact someone you hate has died? Not someone you knew, or who did something horrible to you. Just someone others told you about, and that person was brutally murdered, and you said, “just desserts” or “good riddance.” Where on the spectrum of disordered behavior does such a sentiment lie?
“Our nation is broken. . . . If anyone, in the sound of my voice, celebrated even a little bit at the news of the shooting, I would beg you to look in the mirror, and see if you can find a better angel in there somewhere.”
Utah Governor Spencer Cox
Governor Cox said this speaking spontaneously only hours after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Would that more people could be as eloquent, compassionate, and demonstrate such leadership. I’m not going to address the people on TikTok, FaceBook, Bluesky, etc,. who really were celebrating. Some doubt these claims are real, but if you must, here’s a site (edit: no longer active, probably due to legal concerns) which catches the over 50,000 people (at the moment I posted this blog) who have done just that. Imagine what type of depravity would lead one to believe it’s a good idea to post a video of the shooting with a happy soundtrack and a thumbs-up emoji. There is no sense in talking to such people, for they have delivered themselves over to the darkness.
Rather, I want to talk to my social media “friends” who immediately went to one of the following rationaliztions:
- Charlie Kirk engaged in hate speech, he said . . .
- I won’t shed a tear/feel remorse/express condolences because the other side didn’t when the Hortmans were killed (in Minnesota).
- Trump/Fox News/MAGA shouldn’t make such a big deal about this one man.
- Maybe the MAGA/GOP/Conservatives will finally get serious about gun control.
If you’re in group one, you might want to find the real, hateful statement, or reconsider. Author Stephen King claimed Kirk “advocated for stoning gays.” No, he didn’t, and King apologized. In debates, Kirk pointed out what the biblical injunction and punishment for homosexuality was/is. Two very different things. Others claimed Kirk was antisemitic, but the allegation was refuted: he was quoting someone else and refuting the antisemitism. Denying transexualism is not violence, nor even hate. And even if it was, does it justify cold-blooded murder? Even trying to use this line of argument merits the censure and general approbation which have happened nationwide.1
Imagine group two, thinking they’re making a nuanced statement about hypocrisy. No, they’re publicly admitting to pettiness at an monumental level. If Christian, it’s almost a disqualification except that we believe in repentance, which should start right away for those making this claim. Otherwise, imagine being so obtuse as to admit compassion is called for, but is being withheld because of politics. I didn’t know the Hortmans, so I just said a prayer for them/their family and left the matter alone. Perhaps some deranged soul somewhere immediately sought out Speaker Hortman’s voting record as justifying her assassination. But 50,000? Nope.
Group three is annoyed by all the fuss, and to be fair, legacy and social media is full of non-stop coverage. Many people in this group never heard of Charlie Kirk, except for an occasional headline in Occupy Democrats decrying his “hate speech.” What’s the big deal? Here’s the big deal: he was a force of nature. Instead of going to college, at the tender age of eighteen he formed an organization called Turning Point USA (TPUSA) with the goal of turning his Gen Z cohort towards Trump/MAGA. Even most Republicans/conservatives thought he was crazy. TPUSA had $85 million USD in revenue in 2023 and chapters on 850 college campuses. Despite no formal training, he constantly went to those campuses and engaged in hours of public, free-form debate, and eventually got very good at it. Gen Z turned out to be the group with the biggest pro-Trump move among voters in 2024. He may be more responsible for Trump’s victory than anyone else. And because he was such a force on the right, all the politicos and talking heads knew him on a personal basis. That’s why they’re making such a big deal about it, because he was a big deal for them. It was personal. And it’s why the Hortmans’ murders were less covered, even by the legacy media. Sadly, few outside Minnesota had heard of them.
The fourth group is simply guilty of exploiting calamity as a foil to make a political argument. It’s crass and self-debasing, but it’s also very common these days, especially with respect to gun violence. Since this group is out there and raised the issue, let’s replay the same stale argument we do every time this happens: tell me what gun control law or regulation would have prevented this assassination? The coward used a hunting rifle, a Mauser with a scope, legal in all fifty states. No one is seriously considering limiting or restricting its use. Utah is an open-carry state, but even if it wasn’t, the punk stuck the rifle down the leg of his pants. So don’t raise irrelevant points at a time like this.
In 1859, Abolitionist John Brown had had enough. Slavery was pure evil, and he was willing to kill or die to end it. He and a small band of the like-minded raided the federal arsenal in Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, hoping to spark a slave revolt. The slaves didn’t revolt. The local militia (and the US Marine Corps, under Robert E. Lee) surrounded and captured Brown and a few survivors of his group. Brown was hanged. His raid didn’t cause the civil war, but it did confirm in people’s minds, both North & South, that violence was justified, and indeed, inevitable.
The assassination in Utah is NOT the start of another civil war. But we should all look in the mirror. It should remind us, like the Harper’s Ferry raid, that if we insist our fellow Americans are evil, the weak-willed or weak-minded among us will act out on those beliefs. Charlie Kirk wanted to convince people, and to those who met him or watched his videos, he was very good at it. Others only heard “of him” and formed opinions absent facts. All Charlie wanted to do was talk, not hate . . . and that got him killed. In response to someone who asked why he kept debating the other side, he said, “we have to keep talking, because when we stop talking, the violence starts.”
He was wrong about that; the violence was what stopped the talking.
- A comment about free speech. My perceptive friends know that the freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the US Constitution is freedom from the government restricting your speech. It does not protect the speaker from natural consequences with respect to your job or your school. The government should not be exacting punishment on those making outrageous statements. But no firm and no school need stand by silently, either. Most importantly, we need to regain the notion of responsibility which accompanies freedom of speech. if you say something so odious, you should admit it, not defend it, ask forgiveness, and if necessary quit to avoid causing your company or school further embarrassment. ↩︎
Always enjoy your perspective, commonsense and moral clarity. Thank you.
Thank you, Pat, for all your thoughts, and especially , the last paragraph .
Actions and words do, and should, have consequences.
Pat, thank you. Once again you have given me content for my American Government class. Your last comment about free speech guaranteed by the Constitution is accurate, i.e., the 1st Amendment restricts censorship/interference by government entities. This fact led me to the question, do governments have any responsibility to protect our speech from private individuals or organizations? So far google and AI haven’t showed me much (okay, call me lazy). I did read that some state laws protect speakers from harassment or intimidation, but I couldn’t find much evidence. I assume that an argument could be made by combining the 1st, with the 9th (just because we didn’t write it doesn’t mean it isn’t so) and 14th (equal protection clause) Amendments. So if you want to earn an A in my class, point me in the right direction (call me lazy). On a closing sidenote, following your “look in the mirror” advice, we should all examine the tone of our speech. Nice? Mean? Over the years I have listened to a hundred of Charlies exchanges with students, the word “loving” may be a bit hyperbolic but they certainly were not mean.
I can’t find anything in case history to support the notion that the government has a right or responsibility to protect an individual’s free speech from other individuals or organizations. Of course, when a business fires an employee for something they said, the firing itself must fall under some aspect of the employment contract. Today, most such contracts have a “morals” or “public embarrassment” provision which provides the cover for termination, even due to speech. You’re correct that some enterprising jurist could conjure such a role for the government from various other amendments, but that’s much like Justice Douglas famous quote about rights having “penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance” which was subsequently used to extend privacy rights far beyond anything the Founders considered.
I agree about Kirk. He could be harsh at times in his public debates, but often self-corrected in the spot. I haven’t found a single person yet who called him hateful who has watched even one of his fora on campuses.
Thanks Pat. I’ll let you know if I find anything regarding the government’s role in protecting free speech from non-government entities.
As always Pat. A cogent analysis of a difficult and emotionally charged subject.
Your blog is always a well designed distribution of truth and common sense! Thanks for sharing your take!!