A Mob of Reasonable People

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment, US Constitution

"He's [Charlie Kirk] been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think this is the environment we are in. You can't stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that's the unfortunate environment we are." -- Matthew Dowd, MSNBC, September 10th (he was fired later that day)

In the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination, the 1st Amendment is back center-stage. Many people have lost their jobs because of public comments they've made on social media celebrating Kirk's murder, and are crying 'foul' as a result. They are saying that a 'right-wing mob' has come after them and are getting back on social media to tell the world why they think it's unjust that they've been fired from their employment. Some of them are saying that the 1st Amendment affords them the Right to say whatever they want. This is false.

In the United States, you cannot be arrested for protected speech. This, of course, has limitations - you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and not expect to face legal consequences, nor can you threaten someone with bodily harm, defraud someone, or defame someone's character without potential legal consequences. Having said that, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

With that groundwork laid, to me the more interesting part of all of this is the 'cancel culture' element. Generally I have despised the cancel culture movement. It started with the political Left about 10 years ago but the cancer has spread to the political Right and I don't like when either side engages in it. But I think this particular instance is different and I'm hoping to be able to explain why.

It is one thing to voice an opinion on some topic. Racism is a great example of this - people have all sorts of different opinions on race, race relations, the history of racism, what should be done (or not done) about it, to what level it exists today as a threat to our society, and on and on and on. Same with abortion and women's rights. Same with immigration policy.  There are lots of different opinions on those topics. Every person's own life experience helps to inform their opinions on these types of topics. There are, of course, fringe opinions within the various viewpoints on those issues...but the point is, those are topics which are, by their very nature, debatable. There isn't necessarily a "right" answer.

Celebrating someone's murder is unequivocally NOT like those topics. That is a different thing altogether. Which is why I disagree with the characterization that there is a 'right-wing' mob going after people who have decided to publicly announce their pleasure over Charlie Kirk's assassination. This is not a right-wing mob. This is a mob of  the decent and reasonable who are standing up and saying, "a line has been crossed." Companies, or the humans leading these companies anyway, seem to agree. Several have announced larger scale efforts to discipline and/or release employees who have publicaly engaged in this kind of thing. It is still a mob, and yes, it's definitely a sibling to 'cancel culture', but it is not the same thing as other examples of cancel culture that we've seen.

Celebrating the murder of a human being is not just an opinion...it's an indication of a sickness...of someone who has lost their objectivity as it relates to the sanctity, the value of life. The type of person who would shamelessly celebrate, on a public platform, the murder of another human being should expect to face social consequences for that action because (and thank God for this) the vast majority of us actually hold human life at a high value. It would concern me far more if such comments did NOT draw the ire of my fellow citizens because that would indicate a society-wide sickness.

So, in this instance, I'm grateful for the mob of decent and reasonable people. I'm still against cancel culture, but there are certain times where the pitchforks (metaphorically speaking) must come out.

Addendum: I should also add - I would fight for the rights of people to say the types of things they are saying about Charlie Kirk (celebrating his death). I still believe it's protected speech and I was actually appalled to hear Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, state that she is going to prosecute 'hate speech'. I was glad to see that those comments were roundly rejected by folks on both sides of the political aisle. What's in question here is not a question of whether someone should be allowed to celebrate the death of someone they don't like. What's in question here is decency and decorum, something I've spoken about on this platform before, and whether the consequences of unmasking yourself as evil and heartless should have consequences societally.