In the annals of history, free speech has always been a double-edged sword. It’s the lifeblood of our Constitution, the core mechanism by which ideas clash, truths emerge and society thrives. What happens when that sword turns lethal? When the cost of speaking out isn’t lost revenue or livelihood, but a bullet to the neck? That’s the grim reality we face with the murder of Charlie Kirk.

Kirk paid the ultimate price for free speech, forcing America to confront a chilling question of how far we let the enemies of open discourse go before drawing the line, or even better, holding it.

Kirk was no stranger to controversy. For years, he crisscrossed college campuses, debating progressive orthodoxy and challenging echo chambers that dominate higher education. He never shouted down opponents nor peddled hate, as revisionists are trying to claim. Instead, he directly proposed happiness.

Kirk believed in the power of dialogue. He armed young minds with facts, encouraged critical thinking, and let the chips fall where they may. In an era where universities often serve as indoctrination mills, Kirk’s approach of presenting the evidence, exposing the inconsistencies, and trusting people to decide for themselves was revolutionary. It was free speech in its purest, messy, provocative and profoundly American form.

Yet, for some, that purity was a threat. Kirk’s murder underscores a dangerous escalation. This was the inevitable outcome of years of inflammatory rhetoric that paints conservatives like Kirk as a danger.

Kirk was called a fascist, a white supremacist, a threat to democracy. Never mind that his “crimes” were hosting panels on free markets, critiquing identity politics or questioning the efficacy of social policies.

It is one thing to have cancel culture go after media companies, products and causes. Boycotts are the people’s prerogative in a free society. If you disagree with a viewpoint, you have every right to “vote with your feet,” to withhold your attention and your dollars. That’s how a healthy marketplace of ideas functions. Competition breeds excellence, and bad ideas wither away.

When the cost of producing content starts to exceed the revenue it generates, the decision to cancel is no longer political; it is financial. Free speech, in those cases, becomes too expensive to sustain. Inciting violence? Crossing into threats, doxxing and, ultimately, murder? That’s not dissent; that’s domestic terrorism, and it has no place in our republic.

Kirk’s killing has exposed the hypocrisy of those who claim to champion tolerance while practicing intolerance. Many on the left are still doubling down, even in the wake of this tragedy. Social media is ablaze with posts justifying the act, claiming Kirk “had it coming” for his “hate speech.” They’re being called out for it (rightfully so), but the lies persist.

They twist his words, claiming he spewed points of view with which they disagree. All Kirk did was try to have thoughtful dialogues with those confined to limited ideas, surrounded by echo chambers that affirm only one narrative. When presented with different opinions, facts and perspectives, their eyes were opened. It’s like stepping out of a dark movie theater into blinding sunlight — the shock is real, the adjustment painful. That’s the point of free speech: to illuminate, not to indoctrinate.

Kirk exposed truths that the establishment would rather not discuss. He highlighted our loss of values, the failures of globalist governments, the absurdities of woke ideology and the erosion of personal responsibility. He didn’t force conclusions; instead, he allowed others to reach them on their own, even while trying to prove him wrong. And for many, it was a revelation.

Students who continuously regurgitated progressive talking points began questioning them. Debates turned into discussions, and minds expanded. Kirk performed a vital service; he was no threat (except to those in power). In a world where elites control the discourse, Kirk used free speech to empower individuals, to break the chains of conformity. He reminded us that ideas should be freely tested in the open, not censored in the shadows.

The value of free speech is once again being thrust upon the American people and the world. Will we wake up to the indoctrination machine that’s churning out division and violence, or will we let it continue? The left’s political rhetoric has long advocated for “punching Nazis” and silencing “deplorables,” but now it has cost another life.

In the end, Kirk’s legacy is one of courage. He paid the ultimate price not because he was wrong, but because he was right and was unafraid to say it. As we mourn him, let’s honor his memory by ensuring that free speech doesn’t become a luxury few can afford. Because if it does, America as we know it will be lost.

____

ABOUT THE WRITER

Shaun McCutcheon is a free speech advocate and the founder of Multipolar. He was the successful plaintiff in the 2014 Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. FEC. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

___

©2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC