It should be a basic, universally agreed-upon principle that people shouldn’t be killed because of the things they say or believe in. That’s not just because it’s morally wrong but also because it’s socially corrosive, contrary to the continued existence of a free society, and only fuels cycles of violence and recrimination; because the real political work that creates lasting, transformational change — organizing, persuasion, debate, criticism, and so on — is impossible if someone can be marked for death simply because a person who disagrees with them can get their hands on a gun.
The only way the concept of free speech works in practice is if it applies even to people whose views are ugly, ignorant, vile, even hateful — people like Charlie Kirk, the right-wing activist who was just shot and killed in Utah for reasons that are still not clear. Once you start making exceptions to this rule for this view or that comment, you’ll find the whole foundation of the idea collapses in on itself. It turns out that everyone has their own opinion about what’s acceptable and what’s beyond the pale, and that those opinions are often wildly at odds depending on your personal background and politics.
This is the way democracy and a free society work: We accept that we have to tolerate hearing things we vehemently disagree with, because it guarantees our own right to speak and act freely in ways that others might vociferously detest.
But there is something dishonest and slightly absurd going on right now in the collective reaction to Kirk’s murder. Because rather than simply restate and defend this principle — you have a right to air your views without fear of violence, even if your views suck — a variety of prominent voices are now…
Auteur: Branko Marcetic
