America should not need the assassination of a controversial speaker to be reminded of the value of free speech.
Charlie Kirk was polarizing. He drew crowds of young supporters and critics alike, sparking debates. But regardless of whether you agreed with his ideas, he had the right to express them without fearing for his life.
Since his death, his organization, Turning Point USA (TPUSA), has reported a surge of interest. “In the past 8 days, TPUSA has received 62,000+ requests from high school and college students nationwide to start a chapter or get involved with an existing chapter,” the group tweeted on Sept. 18, 2025. This kind of momentum shows that moments of violence do not silence a movement, it amplifies it.
Conservative strategist Matt Whitlock compared the reaction to the way Trump supporters rallied when the President was attacked. For many young voters, Kirk’s death feels like the same kind of rallying cry.
The fallout has not just mobilized supporters, but it has cost people their jobs over what they said about his death online.
In Tennessee, Middle Tennessee State University fired an assistant dean of students after she wrote on Facebook that she had “zero sympathy” for Kirk. The university’s president called the remarks “inappropriate and callous.”
Administrators at the University of Tennessee placed assistant anthropology professor Tamar Shirinian on leave and began termination proceedings after screenshots showed her posting things such as “the world is better without him in it.” UT’s statement emphasized ‘swift action,’ but it raised a bigger question for me: swift for whom, and by what standard?
“Generally, civil service employees are protected for their political speech and activities performed outside the workplace as a private citizen. In recent years, however, the Courts have allowed government employees to be fired if their comments were not on matters of “public concern” and were disruptive to the workplace,” said Dr. Chris Baxter, a political science and constitutional law professor at the University of Tennessee at Martin.
This isn’t limited to campuses. The trend has stretched nationwide, with employers from pro sports teams to federal agencies firing or suspending employees for posts that higher-ups have deemed unethical for their companies. This highlights the rising tensions between personal speech and workplace reputation.
“In May 2017, the Tennessee legislature signed into law the Campus Free Speech Protection Act. This law and other information about free speech are found at https://www.utm.edu/offices-
“Good judgment and common sense are necessary to balance our freedom of expression. We encourage faculty and staff to consider carefully public comments and posts on personal social media accounts and the impact these comments might have on the university community. Together, we can foster an open environment that is respectful of others and furthers the university’s mission of education and service,” said Grimes.
Grimes’ reminder makes clear that free expression is protected by law but still shaped by an employer’s expectations. Those expectations can clash with personal speech in unpredictable ways, sparking high-profile decisions well beyond the classroom.
We see this trickling to ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, who is being suspended indefinitely for his comments on Kirk’s death. Kimmel had said that the MAGA gang was “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them,” seemingly trying to add more division to the conversation. His suspension has lifted and he will return to TV on Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025.
So the main question everyone’s asking is how is this legal? We as Americans have the right to speak freely, but not to speak without consequences.
“Essentially, the First Amendment protects us from the government, not private actors like our employers. The Free Speech Clause prevents the government from filing criminal or civil charges against us for peacefully speaking our minds on issues of public concern,” said Baxter. “Private employers, though, have generally been allowed to reprimand or fire employees on the basis of preserving professionalism in the workplace. The issue is more complicated for public employees.”
That’s the law. The main issue arises from how these standards are enforced in different situations. If celebrating a political rival’s death gets you fired in one case but a similar offense gets a slap on the wrist, that is not accountability; it’s favoritism.
Even amid discourse online, there was a surprising gesture towards civility. Even amid the ugliness online, there were gestures toward civility. CNN commentator Van Jones received a direct message from Charlie Kirk before his death which included an invitation to have a “respectful dialogue” while promising they could maintain respectful disagreement. The message he sent before his death does not justify the cruel posts that followed his passing, but it does remind me of a better alternative: talk instead of hurt.
One thing that has been with me during the writing of this is seeing all the memorials and vigils for Kirk. Some vigils were more down to earth and some had more fanfare. Nothing hit me harder than seeing Erika Kirk, Charlie’s widow, come out on stage in Glendale, Arizona to a packed State Farm Arena.
Seeing her, a woman who lost her husband for using his right to get young people interested in politics and learning what they believe in, walk on stage with hundreds of thousands of people cheering for her, stirred something in me.
As a history lover, it reminded me of other women who have lost their husbands for speaking their minds. From Jackie Kennedy to Betty Shabazz to Coretta Scott King, it hit something differently. And it was Erika Kirk’s words that resonated most: her forgiveness of the man who killed her husband because, as she said, “I forgive him because it was what Christ did. And is what Charlie would do.”
Kirk’s legacy will always be controversial. Some will praise him, while others will scorn him because they see his message as hateful. One thing we can all hopefully agree on is that no one should be killed for speaking and encouraging polite debate.
As Charlie Kirk said, “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence, that is when civil war happens.” No one should live in fear of being killed for an opinion. And no one should lose their livelihood for simply expressing one. Free speech does not mean speech without consequences, but if consequences depend on what side you stand on, we’ve lost the right altogether.
