Reflection on Violence and Speech

“Stand with Charlie!” This phrase echoes around the globe after horrific attacks by extremists. Interestingly, it’s not a recent response to the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk, but a decade-old mantra that followed the attack on the staff of Charlie Hebdo, a satire magazine based in Paris. Leaders from various countries, including France and Germany, participated in a solidarity march for free speech, even while some of their own nations cracked down on free expression.

Stéphane Charbonnier, the editor-in-chief at the time, took a bold stance against the French government. He famously declared, “I would rather stand and die than live on my lap.” It’s tragic that he was among the first victims targeted during the attack.

In the wake of Kirk’s assassination, a dire political message emerged: “Violent words precede violent actions.” Back then, I noted the glaring hypocrisy of the surviving editor from Charlie Hebdo, who declined to march with those he had previously investigated. Following that march, the governments of France and Germany tightened their censorship laws, targeting views seen as provocative or hateful.

It’s a bitter irony that the very officials who honored the memory of Charlie Hebdo’s staff ended up using their murders to justify stricter speech regulations.

Kirk’s murder in the United States has a distinct context. Unlike the global campaign declaring, “I am Charlie,” the reactions here were mixed. Some celebrated his death, while others voiced regret and even blamed him for his fate.

It’s worth remembering that Kirk dedicated his brief life to exposing the hypocrisy and intolerance prevalent primarily in higher educational institutions. The backlash against him was often fierce, manifesting in violent confrontations and destruction during his events.

There’s a troubling narrative emerging as the pain of past tragedies recedes—some on the right seem eager to blame Kirk or even take joy in his death. That’s really disheartening. I knew Charlie. While I wouldn’t call us best friends, he and I often discussed the ongoing threat to free speech on campuses and the culture of silencing dissent. He truly highlighted that hypocrisy, often at great personal risk.

The legacy of Charlie Kirk should not be marred by hypocrisy or intolerance—those were the very issues he opposed. To enact a campaign that suppresses voices in response to his death completely misses the point of what he stood for. It’s akin to silencing LGBTQ groups out of fear after the assassination of Harvey Milk—completely counterproductive.

Kirk was an advocate for open discourse, urging everyone to express their views, irrespective of popular opinion. He wasn’t part of a cancel culture—he became a victim of it.

It’s important to note the current situation involving hateful remarks and the actions taken against individuals in government or academia. Those who express hateful messages could be facing repercussions. Yet, many who spoke negatively about Kirk did so as individuals, and their personal views don’t always reflect their professional roles.

In the U.S., hate speech is still protected, and the response to remarks deemed inflammatory is a hallmark of the very leftist ideologies Kirk opposed. How easy it is to let anger and grief cloud judgment. Many who are expressing outrage now might have previously remained silent or even supported conservative oppression. Their lack of self-awareness is striking; it’s troubling how they capitalize on indignation while silencing dissenting opinions themselves.

We must be cautious not to become what we’ve fought against in the realm of free speech. We cannot embody the very mentality Charlie battled against until his final moments. The best way to honor his legacy is to uphold the values he cherished most: the freedom to speak out. We need to embody the spirit of “Standing with Charlie.”