To me, free speech is everything. It’s definitely the best part of being an American. Without free speech, power runs unchecked and, as we all know, unchecked power pretty much always leads to tyranny. But here’s the catch: we can’t just protect speech we like or agree with. If we all want the right to say what we think and believe, we also have to be willing to hear things we don’t like and believe. That’s the deal. And since many have forgotten that, let me remind you: that’s how it works.
The aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk, an ardent advocate of debate and free speech, has brought free speech into sharp focus again. In addition to the tragedy, what’s deeply unsettling is how speech around his death has been handled on both sides. Many people publicly celebrated his murder. In response to those celebrations, some started calling for mass firings and blacklists. And, to some degree, it has certainly worked. I saw one social media account that’s tracking every anti-Kirk comment and video so their creators can be reported. At the point when I saw it, it had over 40,000 names and social media accounts listed.
And therein seems to lie the tension. When silencing free speech becomes a weapon in the hands of whichever side has power, we’re in trouble. Because, at that point, the focus is less on protecting free expression and more on controlling it. As a comedian, as well as a minister and professor, I can’t stress precisely how important that is. It’s absolutely critical.
This is so because we comedians often say the things others are afraid to say. We use humor to expose the absurd, corrupt, and arrogant. We mock power, call out hypocrisy, and say out loud what people whisper in private. Comedy is, quite often, social commentary or critique. It often functions as a cultural witness. And it only works if we’re allowed to speak freely.
Comedy is one of the last spaces, one of the last frontiers, so to speak, where truth can be spoken sideways through irony, sarcasm, and satire or straight on. If comedians are silenced, it’s a sign that society no longer tolerates hearing uncomfortable things, often truths. And that’s dangerous, like really dangerous. As such, no matter what someone says, we should all be defending their right to say it. It doesn’t mean we have to like it or agree with it. That’s ultimately irrelevant. It’s about their right to say it.
And in my view, neither the left nor the right can stake an absolute claim on being the true and only defenders of free speech. Liberals spent years pushing “hate speech” boundaries to justify, to one degree or another, shutting down people they disagreed with. Now, in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s death, conservatives are doing the same by cracking down on people for expressing their dissent, even if some of that dissent is ugly. But again: free speech isn’t about comfort. It’s about principle. I can’t help but think that Charlie Kirk himself would’ve shuddered at the sight of peoples’ free speech being silenced.
But the reality is: each side has tried to silence the other. And when you forget your side’s past attempts at censorship, you’re likely to repeat them in the future, just with a different target. Some people who celebrated Kirk’s death have lost jobs, especially in fields like healthcare and education. Should they have? On one hand, free speech protects you from government retaliation, not professional consequences. On the other hand, it raises a serious question: where is the line between accountability and revenge?
If you’re a doctor, for example, and you publicly cheer someone’s death, you’re probably undermining public trust in your profession. Same for teachers, clergy, and others in roles tied to care and responsibility. But it’s not just about someone speaking out; it’s also about how they do it. Gross, cruel, dehumanizing speech reflects poorly on the person, their employer, and their field. Should they say it? Maybe not. Should they have the right to say it, even if it means dealing with consequences. Absolutely. Some institutions, of course, may respond not out of political motivation, but out of concern for credibility and ethics. It’s important to remember that not every consequence is censorship and not every firing is justice either. It can be a hard line to walk.
But this is precisely why we can’t treat free speech like it belongs to one political party. The moment we tie it to just one ideology, we turn it into a weapon rather than a principle. If the left censors today, the right will tomorrow. And vice versa. Free speech has to stand above that. You either defend it when it’s inconvenient, or you’re just using it as a tool when it serves you, which is what many do and have done. The people who care about liberty should care about free speech no matter who’s in power. We must! Full stop!
At the end of the day, I can’t stop thinking about the fact that Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck, in his vocal cords. That felt symbolic, like someone trying to silence a voice. It resonates so deeply because it reminds me of John the Baptizer. Thousands of years ago, he was murdered, he was beheaded, also to shut him up. But centuries later, John’s story is still told. His voice is still heard. I’m not saying Charlie was John, but I am saying you can, indeed, kill a speaker, but a speaker’s message can survive. And that’s one of the deeper truths about free speech: it doesn’t die unless we let it. So, let’s not let it.
And let’s remember that, if we stop defending it, not just for ourselves, but for everyone, then, well, we’ve lost way more than just words. And that’s a scary place to be in. I want to keep writing and telling jokes. I want to keep speaking my mind. And, as much as I might wish others would stop saying certain things and telling certain kinds of jokes, I will always defend their right to do so. Always. Because to me, free speech is everything.