Cancer killed my dad this past May. When I heard Charlie Kirk had been killed, I understood what those who loved him must be feeling: a jagged emptiness that fills with pain and sadness. My dad and I spoke every week but now each Sunday I wait for a call that will never come. Charlie’s family is now waiting for a call that will never come and a father who will never return. But I have fifty-nine years of memories of my father. Charlie’s kids were robbed of these memories to be; they will have but vague memory of him when they grow up. This is one of the many reasons I am saddened by any death; each of us is loved and death robs those who love us. To rejoice in death is to curse love, whether it is the death of Charlie Kirk or the slaying of people in a boat off the coast of Venezuela. I think people should remain silent rather than rejoice in death but will say more about this below.
After Kirk’s death, some rejoiced on the internet. Others condemned the murder but asserted Kirk was a terrible person. In response, the Trump administration and some state governments launched retaliation and intimidation campaigns. Vice President Vance (and fellow Buckeye philosopher) urged people to report Kirk’s critics to their employers to get them fired. Like most on the right, Vance once professed to be a champion of free speech and once said “We may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square.” Vance and others on the right also spent years condemning what they called “cancel culture.” Their recent actions help to further confirm that they are not champions of free speech and that they are enthusiastic about creating “cancel culture” when they are doing the cancelling.
The latest efforts to suppress and punish expression are being made in Kirk’s name. This is ironic because Kirk has been lauded as a champion of free expression, with his supporters pointing out how he went to campuses to debate college students who disagreed with him. That this earned the hatred of Nick Fuentes and led to the Groyper War was certainly a point in his favor. His critics point out that he created a professor watchlist that results in death threats, harassment and efforts to get professors fired. Some might also contend that his motivation to debate college students was to get clips to use as propaganda and to recruit for his cause. To be fair and balanced, while many on the right clearly reject the right of free expression, there seem to be those who are true believers.
Attorney General Pam Bondi (who is from my adopted state of Florida) recently said the Justice Department “will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” This led to pushback from a few people on the right, including Tucker Carlson. These critics embrace the idea of Kirk as a free-speech champion, asserting that he would have objected vehemently to Bondi. Those more cynical than I might claim that these right-wing critics of Bondi are worried that she might go after them. After all, the right wing is divided and there were credible reasons to believe that Kirk’s killer might have been to the right of Kirk, such as being a Groyper. That said, it is unlikely that Bondi really meant what she said. Otherwise, as some would point out, she would have to go after her boss. I agree with Carlson’s criticism of Bondi but what is my theory of free expression given my claim that people should not rejoice in deaths?
While I support free expression, I have the uncontroversial belief that there are some normative limits that should be followed. The weakest limit is that of etiquette. This is composed of the norms of politeness, such as what fork to use or how to address one’s professor. While this is a matter of convention (we make these up), it also forms some of the oil that greases the social wheels and plays an important role in keeping them running smoothly. They are also the way we show respect for one another. Following the norms of etiquette serve these practical purposes and we should be cautious of breaking them and consider the harm that might be done by doing so.
While the norms of etiquette are mere conventions that vary between people, most do accept that rejoicing in the death of another is impolite. As such, one should think before breaking that norm (if one accepts it). That said, etiquette (civility) can be weaponized to silence people by equating criticism with being uncivil. And people can make themselves unworthy of respect by being terrible people. But merely being rude is a minor offense and the consequences should be proportional to that offense. One can even argue that there should be no consequences at all.
I strive to be unfailingly polite even in the face of rudeness and provocation. One reason is a matter of principle in that I think that even terrible people deserve some basic respect simply for being people. And everyone has bad days, so I give people the benefit of the doubt if they are rude to me. Another reason is that I learned that civility can be justly weaponized: remaining unfailingly polite unsettles some people when they are being rude or hateful, occasionally pushing them to reconsider their words or actions.
A much stronger realm of norms is that of ethics, although there are many thinkers who argue for moral nihilism, subjectivism, or relativism. As a practical matter, I usually follow J.S. Mill’s principle of harm when it comes to the ethics of expression and ask whether the expression would cause meaningful harm. The usual example of immoral expression is, of course, yelling “fire” in a theater when there is no fire and causing a panic. But there are obviously degrees of harm, and specific cases can be debated. For example, saying mean things about a person could cause them discomfort, but this would create far less harm then doxxing them on social media and calling for them to be fired.
Because I accept objective morality, my expression is governed by principles: I consider what harm I might cause to others and restrict my expression accordingly. This is, obviously, how I regulate all my actions. Or try to. Being a philosopher, I recognize that there are many other views of ethics that differ from my own and I am wary of imposing my ethics on others. That said, the principle of harm seems to be a good general guide about what a person should say. In the case of death, rejoicing in the death of another seems to be morally wrong because of the harm it can do to others and, perhaps, one’s own character. As such, I do not rejoice in the death of others even when I think they were wicked or even deserved their fate. Because of this, I think people (morally) should not express joy in the death of others. But they should be allowed to do so, because the harm caused does not rise to the level that requires significant consequences. The times being what they are, I must make it clear that I condemn the murder of Kirk and would prefer a better world without as much murder.
It could be argued that such an expression shows bad character and would, morally, justify firing a person. But this would require adequate proof of bad character that would be relevant to their occupation. This would involve extensive evidence of egregious and consistent wickedness relevant to their profession. Social media is a trap for people: it creates in us the feeling that we must respond instantly in the hopes of getting attention and enables us to do so in a public manner. As such, we often get to see the worst thing a person might ever say but would not say if they reflected on it. Because of this, firing someone because of a single post would almost never be justified. We have all thought awful things that are not who we really are, and we should forgive each other for those moments, even if we say them out loud. Naturally, if there is adequate evidence of persistent and egregious wickedness relevant to a person’s job, then firing them could be morally justified. For example, if a leader persistently expressed their lack of concern about war crimes, then they should be fired. But this principle should (morally) be applied consistently. But morality is distinct from law.
The third, and usually the most consequential, normative area is the law. While the law is, like etiquette, just made up, it has serious consequences ranging from fines to death. The United States government is, of course, supposed to be limited by the 1st Amendment. While the text of the amendment is clear, it does allow for debate about what is and is not protected and it obviously depends on the whims of those in power. But from a moral standpoint, this right should be respected, and the state should only use its coercive power in accord with the amendment. As such, people should not be subject to the coercive power 0f the state merely for expressing views the rulers dislike, even if they express approval of Kirk’s murder.
It is also worth pointing out that the amendment is a right against the state alone. It does not apply to private entities like employers. As such, an employer could fire someone at any time in response to (or retaliation against) something they said on social media. Even employers who have professed a love of free speech can and will fire people. People often mistakenly believe that they have a general legal right to free expression but some learn that our employers have more power over us than the state in terms of what we are allowed to express. So, a business can legally fire someone for posting they were glad Kirk was murdered. They could also fire someone for expressing their sadness at Kirk’s death, although that would obviously strike most people as an odd thing to do. As I argued back when “the left” was cancelling people and getting them fired, employers should (morally) only fire people if their offense merits doing so. This is based on the principle that the punishment for an offense should be proportional to the offense. For most people being fired would be devastating. Which is, one might suspect, why many free speech warriors on the right are enthusiastically embracing cancel culture to intimidate and harm those whose views they disagree with. They are warriors against free speech, not for it.
Since his creation, James Bond has been a white man. Much to the delight of some and to the horror of others,