The blurred lines between politics and common morality

Some 238 years ago Thomas Jefferson wrote that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Charlie Kirk was a patriot and his blood, shed by an assassin’s bullet, is making Americans take their free-speech liberties seriously once again.

Jefferson wrote his famous line in response to an insurrection – a real, armed one quite unlike the ugly out-of-control protest at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. The author of the Declaration of Independence wasn’t defending the rebels who had risen up under the command of Daniel Shays. His letter was instead a warning against overreaction to the rebellion on the part of the national government. Kirk’s assassination also calls for a response that respects the principles for which he risked, and ultimately gave, his life.

Kirk was a target because of his conservative views. Leftists demonized him as a racist, a Nazi and a living, breathing threat to the lives of transgender persons. For years, radical leftists and Trump-loathing liberals have casually labeled their political opponents as fascists or Nazis who threaten “democracy,” without owning up to the implications of such talk. If Hitler really were on the verge of taking power in America, wouldn’t using violence to stop him be not only moral but mandatory? Political rhetoric can be cheap to the point of meaninglessness, but it’s clear many commentators in the mainstream media, to say nothing of radical left activists, intended these characterizations to be taken seriously. Yet they dared not complete their own thoughts, let alone translate them into the logical action.

Kirk’s murderer, who reportedly had a trans lover and carved anti-fascist slogans into his bullets, followed through on the left’s premises. And on the anti-Trump social network Bluesky, his crime was celebrated – or at least Kirk’s wickedness, not the gunman’s, was the major topic of conversation. “It is a tragedy both that charlie kirk lived and that he died,” one even-handed Blueskyer opined. Another, uniting the sexual and pharmaceutical obsessions typical of the crowd, wrote, “In honor of Charlie Kirk who believed  God wanted gays to be stoned I think I will have an edible.” Droll, even if it depends on the lie, widespread on Bluesky, that Kirk believed such a thing. A German account with the handle TRG Movies & Entertainment wrote, “Charlie Kirk, the white nationalist, has been killed? Why didn’t anyone tell me? Fuuckin’ hell. Wow. Who, how, and are you ‘sad’ about it? As a German, knowing where this fascist nazi shit is leading: I ain’t.”

Disagreeing with the left, or the right, doesn’t make you a bad person – celebrating naked evil does

Examples can be multiplied endlessly. “Kirk’s death was good. if you can’t agree with that then frankly you’re either a fascist yourself or a fucking dumbass,” wrote an account called “Harlot,” evincing a pathological hatred of capital letters as well as Kirk: “there is no wiggle room here, that man deserved to die.” “Remember this before you condemn ‘political violence,’ he advocated political violence against trans people,” wrote one “Natacha.”

I didn’t have to hunt for those quotes – they were from posts trending under “Charlie Kirk” the day he was murdered.

There were many more restrained comments as well, including from Bluesky CEO Jay Graber, who wrote a post beginning, “Violence only begets violence.” Yet the replies from his site’s users included one quoting without comment a message saying, “When you argue that fascists should be defeated through debate what you’re actually suggesting is that vulnerable minorities should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist and that at no point should the debate be considered over and won.”

God forbid a “vulnerable” minority should have to make an argument instead of having someone shot. If you can’t forever end a discussion with bullets, doesn’t that mean the fascists win? Some comments applauding Kirk’s murder or saying he got what he deserved – as if “what goes around comes around” applies to answering words with sniper fire – came from identifiable members of the public, including alarming numbers of teachers, medical professionals and caregivers. And some of those gloating enthusiasts for murder have since been fired. Is that an injustice – an insult to free speech?

Not in the least. What they’re being fired for is not political speech but profoundly bad character. Someone who tells a rape victim he hopes she enjoyed it or who boasts about torturing animals shouldn’t be trusted to teach children or care for the sick. People who exhibit their wicked character by cheering for straightforward murder are declared enemies of the most basic moral standard.

Yet there are overreactions of the kind Jefferson might have feared, including from the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, who unbosomed herself of the belief, incompatible with the First Amendment, that “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech,” threatening, “we will absolutely target you… if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Kirk himself would have been a target of the federal government under that standard, not because he was a purveyor of hate but because his enemies, themselves as hateful as their Bluesky testimonies indicate, would have been just as happy to silence him with federal goons under their control as they were to see him killed by a freelancer.

The left, and anti-Trump liberals driven insane by the collapse of their own prestige and norms, have worked assiduously to blur the lines between politics and common morality. Disagreeing with the left, or the right, doesn’t make you a bad person – celebrating naked evil does. The First Amendment protects even that. But employers should not.

This article was originally published in The Spectator’s September 29, 2025 World edition.