Free speech guards individual rights
Last week, as tributes and thoughtful commentary emerged in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, we were alarmed and disconcerted to see and hear of at least three separate incidents attempting to stifle free speech in our state. It was darkly ironic, given Kirk’s own fervent belief in the First Amendment.
First, the Wyoming Freedom Caucus picked up a story from the University of Wyoming’s paper, the Branding Iron, in which a single unnamed student “repeatedly refused to identify themself (and) basically said that this (Kirk’s death) was a good thing. That Charlie Kirk deserved to die for harboring fascist and racist beliefs.” Most other students surveyed for their opinions by the paper’s editor had expressed sympathy for Kirk and his family, and the paper itself condemned the dissenting voice with its editor writing, “We found that absolutely disgusting.”
Somehow, this in-text condemnation was not enough for the state’s Freedom Caucus, which took to social media and posted on both Facebook and X, “Why is the UW student newspaper platforming students who support political assassinations? This level of indifference toward human life is dangerous and unacceptable.”
The next day, the caucus targeted a UW graduate student interviewed by Cowboy State Daily in another social media post. Her offense? Saying, “Charlie Kirk, in his heart, thought he was doing the right thing, but I think he also spread a lot of horrible rhetoric. I’m not happy to see him murdered in front of his family at all, but I’m also aware that I think I was happy to have his voice out of the spotlight.” The caucus posted the student’s comment and her photo to its social media, remarking, “Wyoming taxpayers pay her salary.” In other words: Shut up or lose your job.
We struggle to understand how the Freedom Caucus – so named, ostensibly, to convey its commitment to the basic liberties we cherish so dearly — squares its commitment to our civil liberties with a seeming effort to target and dox individuals voicing dissent. We do not feel freer for their actions, but incensed. Are we meant to only have and share uniform opinions now? Are we no longer allowed to critique public figures without risk to our livelihoods? Must we now, ironically, temper our words? What of the power differential of a state legislative caucus publicly targeting two students at a university? How very Orwellian.
We were similarly struck by a remark made by Sublette County Commissioner Lynn Bernard, who told our colleagues at the Pinedale Roundup during a meeting that he was glad the county did not have an exclusive contract with the paper to run its legals because “if you poop at my dinner plate, I’m going to take the steps to change to someone else.”
To remove the county legals from the Roundup because its editorial department has not shown appropriate deference to its commissioners is to bludgeon it at the knees – printed legals provide financial stability to newspapers. They also, like newspapers themselves, provide accountability. Governments cannot alter the physical text printed on the page by our papers, but moving them to outlets willing to censor information or migrating to online notices – so desired by the Freedom Caucus – where they can be tweaked after the fact, governments can obfuscate their actions and avoid scrutiny.
Freedom of Speech does not come with an asterisk attached to it: the right is afforded to comedians as readily as Ku Klux Klan members. Freedom of Speech does not mean we cannot feel offended or hurt or disturbed by someone’s remarks. It does not mean we can’t think it isn’t funny or appropriate or right.
Your rights end where another’s begin. We have the right to disagree and debate, but we, and especially our government, do not have the right to impose our views on others.