Whether you swim in the sea of politics or merely drift in it, there is no doubt recent events have people everywhere questioning our country’s principles. Specifically, the last month has seen many challenges to our First Amendment right to free speech, which we all practice daily without a second thought.
As Americans, we are protected when openly expressing ourselves. But as of late, that right finds itself in murky waters.
For the sake of clarity, let’s narrow this topic down to a more currently relevant timeline. On Sep. 10, 2025, political activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated during an event at Utah Valley University. While his killing was unjust, we are seeing it being mocked, promoted and warped into political ammunition by extremists of all kinds.
Additionally, a few other tragedies were completely overshadowed by the controversy that day. During a makeshift vigil organized by fans outside of the Idaho state capitol, a man rode through the crowd on a bicycle, shouting curses directed toward Kirk. Subsequently, he was mobbed by the attendees, suffering serious injuries in the assault. This shows how a single event managed to unravel into a morbid ripple effect of attacks coming from all sides.
In the chaotic aftermath, a lot of people claiming to support free speech ended up acting against that very right.
The First Amendment emphasizes that, when one person says something that’s controversial, another is well within his right to challenge that idea. But what is becoming increasingly normalized is opposition being met with aggression – even within simple discussions. Such responses grossly undermine the entire idea of civil conversation, and morph it into war rather than discourse. Instead of people trying to understand each other through the power of words, we are instead shown a miserable display of irony as people take up arms in order to prove their point.
Outside of physical violence, measures are being taken to censor certain opinions from the limelight. For example, late night show host Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily suspended following his comments on the events of Sep. 10. It’s important to note that Kimmel didn’t promote the killing nor endorse hate speech; in fact, he condemned it, calling it senseless. He did, however, go on to scrutinize MAGA’s approach to the situation, claiming that they were “doing everything they can to score political points.”
While it may seem insignificant or even righteous to some, this reprimand indicates a much deeper problem. Talk shows play a major role in opening up discussions and ideas within communities, and for a public figure to be deprived of his platform for voicing his concerns is beyond troubling.
During an interview with TuHS world history teacher Stephen Johnson on the matter, he noted close similarities of this media restriction to the unfolding of historical totalitarian dictatorships, stating, “These tactics are very reminiscent of actions by other regimes… Once the media is controlled, authoritarians become the only source of the ‘truth’.” He continued, “If we as a society do not reject these restrictions, we are in danger of losing our free society.”
Is there a lack of definition at the borderline where opinions become hate speech? How can people feel empowered to be vocal about issues within this country when they are threatened with punishment?
It is clear that political violence is not a “one shoe fits all” topic. We have been shown repeatedly that all walks of life have partaken in wrongdoings and that offenders of the law never have the same face. One cannot justly pick and choose when to defend or condemn something based on what best fits his narrative.
And most importantly, while it may be disheartening or disagreeable at times, the media is meant to promote discussion, not denounce it.