The agonizing death of free speech in America

Charlie Kirk’s assassination was horrific. I disagreed with most of what he said, but there is no denying that he was brutally shot and killed while practicing democracy. By that, I mean debating the issues out in the open on a university campus. This makes it even more gut-wrenching. No human being should be killed for their political views, and we can’t care about democracy without valuing free speech, even speech we don’t like.

President Trump built his political brand by saying everything a politician is not supposed to say. He called Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists as he announced his candidacy in 2015. I wasn’t alone in thinking it was political suicide, yet his willingness to say whatever he thinks, no matter how ugly or unkind, is what many Americans love about him. He said the things that they had been thinking but were afraid to say out loud. Yes, some of these things are racist, sexist, violent or just plain rude. This thrilled people who felt muzzled by so-called political correctness.

Some might claim that Trump’s political brand is free speech.

It's worth noting here that the U.S. has a more unfettered view of free speech than Europe, which attempts to limit some speech, notably hate speech. Nevertheless, on both sides of the Atlantic, it is a struggle to determine what is and isn’t permitted speech in the public sphere.

The law cannot always help us get along. Our daily interactions, both publicly and privately, rest on our values, morals and ethics. James Baldwin is often given credit for saying, "we can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”

It's a damned reasonable statement. Most of us—regardless of our political leanings—fervently wish to live in a world where no one is oppressed or denied their humanity or right to exist. The problem is that it’s become politically expedient to frame the other side as the enemy that wants to destroy your way of life.

Political campaigns must whip their potential voters into an angry or fearful froth to guarantee they’ll show up at the ballot on election day. This is fueled by the attention economy driven by social media where getting traction requires shock and awe. It doesn’t matter whether the coverage is good or bad, just that the given candidate or leader is dominating social media feeds and therefore, your attention. No one plays this game better than Donald Trump.

But how much is too much for our democracies to handle? As more leaders, candidates and influencers grab your attention for saying hair-raising things, they drown out the more reasonable voices or force them to radicalize their rhetoric.

Trump did what most presidents do after a national tragedy, he spoke from the resolute desk in the oval office. What Americans would normally expect from a speech like this are words of calm and healing and unity.

Yet, about halfway through his speech, Trump vowed that his “administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence” and went on to blame the “radical left political violence [that] has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.”

He made no mention of violence perpetrated against Democratic Party leaders, such as the recent assassination of Minnesota House of Representatives member Melissa Hortman and her husband. He certainly didn’t mention the attempt to burn down Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s house, while he and his family slept inside. Of course, Trump didn’t mention the plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who he had vilified at the time. Or former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, whose skull was fractured as he was viciously attacked in their home. An attack that Trump mocked at a rally in California soon after.

As the tensions rise the word “tinderbox” has come up repeatedly to describe the state of the United States in aftermath of Kirk’s death. This, however, is no concern to Team Trump.

Stephen Miller called out “an ideology that has steadily been growing in this country which hates everything that is good, righteous and beautiful and celebrates everything that is warped, twisted and depraved.” Elon Musk proclaimed on X that “The Left is the party of murder.”

Where does this end?

The Donald Trump that supposedly stood for free speech is using Kirk’s death to further silence dissent by going after left leaning non-profit organizations and protest groups, arguing that they pose a grave threat to conservative values and their version of the American way of life. Trump officials have promised to revoke the visas of anyone who can be seen as “celebrating” Kirk’s death, launch federal investigations into hate speech and give terrorist designations to some organizations. But only the ones that oppose him.

This is how free speech dies. This is how democracy dies.

“It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree.” These are Trump’s own words from the oval office speech after Kirk’s death. It’s a tragedy for American democracy that he doesn’t believe them.

This is the English version of my column, La Globalista, in El Español.