When I first heard about Charlie Kirk’s assassination, I was stunned—not only by the violence but by the reactions that followed. My feed filled with people celebrating his death, others demanding revenge, and still others spreading false claims about who said what.

Some posts accused Hollywood figures of mocking his death and being fired for it. None of that turned out to be true. The only thing those celebrities did was sign a letter claiming that Jimmy Kimmel’s “free speech” had been violated when his employer briefly suspended him.

The First Amendment protects citizens from government censorship. It doesn’t shield anyone from criticism or professional consequences. Yet both sides weaponized the phrase “free speech” to attack each other.

For some, it meant “I can say whatever I want without consequences.”

For others, it meant “silence those whose speech I dislike.”

Neither represents true freedom.

Tribalism now dominates our discourse. Each side uses outrage as ammunition, clipping quotes out of context and spreading misinformation that reinforces existing biases. The result is what I call “outrage porn”—emotionally addictive, morally shallow, and intellectually destructive.

An individualist alternative demands better of us. Freedom means private choices, not public coercion. It means defending the principle of open discourse, even when we dislike the speaker.

True free speech lives in the tension between tolerance and accountability—where we respond with reason instead of rage.

The way forward isn’t to “take a side,” but to speak the truth even when it offends our own allies. If we want communities built on consent and voluntary cooperation, we must practice those same principles in our discourse: listening with curiosity, speaking with integrity, and rejecting the easy thrill of outrage.

Because in the end, freedom isn’t about agreeing with every speaker—it’s about protecting the space where honest disagreement can exist.

Read the full essay on Substack

​