I have taught college students about the First Amendment for 10 years, the last three at the University of Iowa, where the course I teach is called, simply, “Freedom of Expression.” I came to this career because I felt a calling to educate young people about how unique and wondrous (and sometimes completely bonkers) First Amendment law is. 

This column is an extension of that calling, bringing the First Amendment outside the classroom to discuss the state of free speech in America at a time of crisis following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

For our purposes here, an abridged version of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” While “no law” is not literal (there are some limited exceptions to freedom of speech—come take my class to find out more), this language makes it very hard for the government to regulate your speech. The result: more speech is free from punishment in America than anywhere in the world, including speech many would find hateful and divisive.

Why is that? Or why should that be? There are too many reasons to include in this column, but let’s start with the Supreme Court’s soaring rhetoric on the topic:

“[A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.” (Terminiello v. Chicago, 1949)

We live in a marketplace of ideas. Under the First Amendment, one idea has the same legal value as any other idea, regardless of where your idea falls on the political spectrum, whether it is designed to unite or divide, lift up marginalized voices or spread hate. 

That marketplace is not perfect. Some speakers are more powerful (i.e., wealthier) than others. Some media can artificially and unduly boost extreme ideas with little social value while de-boosting the more moderate and wholesome ones (see X under Elon Musk’s control). These are flaws we can live with, even if begrudgingly. What is untenable is the state punishing some ideas over others for political reasons. And, obviously, inflicting physical harm against a rival speaker to silence them is a patently illegitimate function of this marketplace.

Despite Kirk’s assassination, the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump last year, the assassination of Minnesota state lawmakers earlier this year, and, sadly, dozens of other recent examples of political violence, I’m hopeful the First Amendment will see our nation through. Indeed, having expansive protections for speech is supposed to limit political violence, allowing change to happen through debate that, while often bitter and intense, is nonetheless peaceable even if not peaceful. If everyone can be assured that their ideas will at least have a chance at being heard, even if not accepted, there is less incentive to resort to violence to realize those ideas. 

With these lessons in mind, I urge us, members of the UI community and beyond, to truly commit to the principles of civil dialogue the First Amendment makes space for. Let’s avoid winner-takes-all arguments, “owning” the other side, and line-drawing with impossible purity tests. Let’s make each other truly feel heard and understood, even if doing so, to quote the Supreme Court, “invites dispute … or even stirs people to anger.”

The killing of Kirk laid bare raw, open wounds in our polarized country. For many vulnerable and marginalized people, Kirk’s words were an existential threat. For Kirk’s followers, his killing represents further proof that their voices are the truly marginalized ones, that they are the victims of liberal cancel culture run amok. 

Not exactly a strong starting place for starting civil dialogue, but not futile either. I believe we can agree on a few things. First, Kirk’s killing is nothing to celebrate. Comments of that nature make a mockery of human decency and cheapen all the First Amendment stands for. Second, people can simultaneously criticize Kirk’s ideas and condemn his brutal death. To suggest otherwise is to unduly skew the public debate the First Amendment fosters. Third, reacting to Kirk’s killing by stripping liberal civil society organizations of their tax-exempt status is a brazen First Amendment violation that besmirches the legacy of anyone who champions themselves a free-speech advocate, including Kirk.

To quote the Supreme Court again, “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and … inflict great pain.” What we cannot let it do is unleash the basest parts of our nature against one another.

Disclaimer: This op-ed reflects my personal views and does not reflect the views of my employer.

— Brett Johnson, PhD/JD, Associate Professor, UI School of Journalism and Mass Communication; Licensed Attorney