The shocking attack on Charlie Kirk on a university campus feels like a uniquely modern horror, a symptom of our bitterly divided times.
But the act of using violence to silence a political voice is, tragically, not new. It is part of a long and bloody thread that runs through the American story.
From the printing press to the picket line, from the town square to the halls of government, the First Amendment has always had enemies who seek to answer words with weapons. Understanding this dark history is crucial to grasping the profound stakes of the political violence we face today.
A History of Violence Against Speech
- The Context: The shooting of Charlie Kirk is the latest in a long and tragic history of political violence targeting free speech in America.
- The Constitutional Principle: Such attacks are a direct assault on the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and assembly, attempting to replace debate with violence.
- Historical Examples: This dark history includes the murder of abolitionist journalists, the assassination of civil rights leaders, politically motivated bombings, and attacks on elected officials.
- The Core Issue: These events are a stark reminder that First Amendment rights are not self-enforcing and that political violence – from any source – is a fundamental threat to the democratic process.
The Price of the Press: Journalists Under Fire
The first and most direct assault on a free society is often an attack on its free press. The journalists who exercise their First Amendment right to report uncomfortable truths have, throughout our history, paid the ultimate price.
In 1837, Elijah Lovejoy, an abolitionist newspaper editor in Alton, Illinois, was murdered by a pro-slavery mob for publishing anti-slavery editorials. They destroyed his printing press four times; the final time, they killed him. He is often considered the first martyr to the freedom of the press in America.
This dark tradition has continued into the modern era. In 2018, a gunman with a personal grudge against the local newspaper walked into the newsroom of the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland, and murdered five employees in a horrific act of targeted violence against a journalistic institution.
An Assault on Civil Rights: The Fight for Equality
The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were exercising their constitutional rights to speech and assembly to demand that the nation live up to its founding ideals. For their efforts, many were met with brutal violence.
In 1963, Medgar Evers, the NAACP’s field secretary in Mississippi, was assassinated in the driveway of his home. His “crime” was his tireless work organizing voter registration drives and boycotts against segregated businesses. His murder was a direct attempt to silence the voice of the movement he led.
In 1978, Harvey Milk, a San Francisco Supervisor and one of the first openly gay elected officials in American history, was assassinated alongside Mayor George Moscone. Milk was murdered for who he was and for the political voice he gave to a marginalized community.
“The history of the fight for civil rights is inextricably linked with violence against those who dared to speak out. Their exercise of First Amendment rights was seen as a threat to the established order.”
When Politics Turns Violent: Attacking the Process
Even our elected officials, the very people who write our laws, have not been immune to this violence.
In 2017, a lone gunman with a political grievance opened fire on Republican members of Congress as they practiced for a charity baseball game in Alexandria, Virginia. Five people were wounded, including then-House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who was critically injured. The attack was a chilling attempt to assassinate one political party’s leadership.
This is not a one-sided issue. Political violence has come from all corners of the ideological spectrum throughout our history, from the left-wing extremists of the Weather Underground in the 1970s to the right-wing extremists who have targeted abortion clinics and federal buildings.
The Enduring Republic
The list of violent attacks on the First Amendment is long, painful, and crosses all partisan and ideological lines. Each act of violence is a test of the nation’s commitment to its most basic principles.
The constitutional response to these attacks is not retaliatory violence, but the steady and impartial application of the rule of law. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not protect violence; in fact, violence is its greatest enemy.
The attack on Charlie Kirk is a horrifying new entry in this dark ledger. It is a powerful reminder that the right to speak freely is not self-enforcing. It depends on a citizenry that is courageous enough to condemn violence in all its forms and to defend the right of even those with whom they most passionately disagree to speak without fear.