How will we respond?

Let's all agree on two things to start out. First, freedom of speech is important. Second, the way we respond to tragedies is important. 

Now, let's get into it. 

This past week has been an emotional one for me. I had just finished building the pages of last week's paper when I saw the national news – Charlie Kirk had been shot at an event in Utah. It wasn't long before I saw the update that he had passed away. 

I was immediately shocked. I've been familiar with Charlie Kirk for several years, and was quickly horrified at the fact that he was killed and the way that he was killed. But as I watched responses unfold over the following hours and days, I saw some very different perspectives. 

As a journalist in Wyoming, some of the first responses I saw were from our elected officials and political groups, many of whom put out statements condemning the shooting, most of which praised Kirk for who he was and the work he did.

When I got on my personal Facebook, I saw similar responses. Many people I grew up going to church with or knew from various Christian organizations and missions groups were grieving Charlie Kirk's death and praising him for being a true Christian who preached the gospel and stood for the truth. 

My personal Instagram was a different story. I follow a lot of accounts run by people who, like me, grew up in fundamental evangelical conservative Christian circles and who, like me, have since left those circles (although most of them still identify as Christians). Some of those accounts are why I was familiar with Charlie Kirk to begin with, because for years they've been sharing how and why they disagree with him and believe that his teachings in the name of Christianity are actually harmful and dangerous. I want to be quick to point out that the initial response to his death from most of those accounts was also shock and horror at his murder. However, as more people have suddenly become aware of who Charlie Kirk was in the past week, they have continued to share their concerns. 

I'll be honest with you – I didn't agree with Charlie Kirk at all. My initial response was that I wasn't celebrating his death, but I also wasn't celebrating his life. I do believe his teachings and rhetoric were harmful to many people, particularly Black people, LGBTQ+ people, women, and other minority groups (and generally people who didn't agree with him). His stance was one of Christian nationalism, which I believe goes against the teachings of Jesus. 

It's become very clear that two diametrically opposed perspectives on Charlie Kirk are out there, and people have been arguing about them for a week. If you're not sure where you stand, you can look up what he said and come to your own conclusions. I'm not here to convince you of my perspective because this isn't the format for that.

But I am here to talk about how this entire situation has brought up some concerns for me, specifically related to freedom of speech and the general response to tragedies. 

First, I'm sure we would all agree that freedom of speech is a fundamental right in our nation. No one should be killed for what they say. Those that support Charlie Kirk are horrified to think that he was killed for speaking out and expressing his beliefs. I agree.

Where I'm concerned is that in the wake of his death, we've seen some groups push the pendulum the other direction, where they now want to punish those speaking out against Charlie Kirk. There have been doxxing websites going up online where people are making lists of those who've expressed their disagreement with Kirk, and using those lists to harass people, try to get them fired, or threaten them. Thankfully several of these sites have been taken down already, but even on a smaller scale, getting mad at people for expressing their disagreement with Charlie Kirk while getting mad that he was killed for expressing his disagreements with them is a scary double standard. 

If you liked Charlie Kirk and see him as someone who valued open and respectful dialogues, then put that into practice yourself. Don't immediately condemn those who express their disagreement with his teachings as "celebrating his death." Don't brand those with a different perspective as an enemy that must be defeated. 

This is also where my second concern comes in. The way we respond to tragedies is important, which includes not responding to violence with more violence.

I'm very concerned that one of the main responses to Charlie Kirk's death has been to blame "the left" and to talk about cracking down on liberal groups and those that disagreed with him.

President Trump and others immediately blamed "the left" for Charlie Kirk's death, even before we knew anything about the shooter. Information about the shooter has since come out that actually points to him being from alt-right extremist groups, meaning that if anything Charlie Kirk was likely killed for being too "liberal" and not "right" enough. But even since then, ignoring evidence and statistics, Vice President J.D. Vance and others continue to blame "the radical left" for violence and for Kirk's murder. Others have used militant terminology following Kirk's death, saying it should be a "battle cry" and that now is the time to "fight back."

This is dangerous language that puts a target on huge groups of people and could easily encourage more violence. I believe responding to a tragedy with this kind of angry and vengeful language dishonors the tragedy itself.

Yes, the killing of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy, but I'm scared that it will ultimately lead to even more tragedies if it continues to be used in a way that punishes free speech, promotes further divides in our nation, and encourages people to fight each other rather than taking time to listen.