The tragic death of Charlie Kirk last week at Utah Valley University shocked our community, our state and our nation. I mourn this loss of life, and I condemn violence in every form. But grief must never become a tool to silence legitimate voices of dissent.
The First Amendment was not written to shield public figures from discomfort. It was written to protect dissent — especially when it is unpopular, inconvenient or unsettling to those in power. Free speech is the heartbeat of our democracy. It safeguards both those we admire and those we oppose.
The Supreme Court has long held that the First Amendment protects not only popular speech but also speech that unsettles or even offends.
Charlie Kirk himself once acknowledged this truth. Just last year he declared: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.“
Yet today, some of his allies argue that criticism of him should somehow be off limits. That contradiction doesn’t just betray Kirk’s own words — it betrays the Constitution he passionately claimed to defend. Free speech does not mean freedom from criticism; it means the right of every American to speak and be challenged.
Kirk built his career as a strong and controversial voice. That was his right. But Americans also have the right to respond, to question and to challenge. Pam Bondi and others would have us believe that such criticism is somehow un-American — that questioning a powerful figure amounts to an attack on their rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. The First Amendment protects dissent precisely because it makes the powerful uncomfortable. To narrow its reach to only one side is to betray its purpose.
Bondi’s own recent remarks illustrate the danger. In the wake of Mr. Kirk’s assassination, she said there’s “free speech and then there’s hate speech,” adding, “We will absolutely target you ... if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
That framed “hate speech” as punishable — a view the First Amendment does not recognize. Civil-liberties experts promptly noted that there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment.
Utah has always valued independence, resilience and faith in the strength of open dialogue. Our pioneer ancestors crossed deserts and mountains to secure freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. That legacy is not something we should discard simply because it makes politics easier for the powerful. Utah pioneers didn’t cross deserts for silence; they crossed them for freedom of conscience and expression
During my years in the Utah Senate, I learned that public service requires humility — the willingness to hear dissent and face criticism. Criticism can sting, but it sharpens accountability. Those lessons stayed with me: Leadership is not about silencing disagreement, but about standing firm enough to listen and respond.
Leaders who try to silence their critics betray the very principles they took an oath to uphold. Vice President Vance swore an oath not to Charlie Kirk but to the Constitution of the United States. That oath requires him to defend the speech of every American, not just those aligned with his political allies.
Free speech belongs to all of us. At this moment, Utahns and Americans alike must decide: Will we defend free speech only when it serves our side, or will we uphold it for all? The strength of our democracy depends on that answer. And we must be just as clear on this: political violence, from any side, is never justified. A democracy built on the rule of law and the power of ideas cannot survive if we replace dialogue with destruction.