In the past decade, the U.S. has seen a great rift in political polarization and a detrimental turn on the meaning of free speech.
On Sep. 10, right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated in a show of political violence. Kirk, known for his debates with left-wing activists, was speaking at a question-and-answer event at Utah Valley University when he was shot in the neck and killed.
President Donald Trump, among others, has characterized Kirk as a martyr. Trump also blamed liberals for the incident and promised viewers in a White House Address that his administration would bring justice to Kirk by punishing the liberal groups irrationally deemed “responsible” for the shooting.
This is not the first occurrence of political violence in recent years, but it seems that Trump’s sympathy only extends to those whose views align with his. In both the 2022 attack on Paul Pelosi and the 2025 shooting of two democratic Minnesota lawmakers, Trump had a dispassionate reaction, giving the impression that his sympathy is one-sided.
This dispassion, compared to his outcry about Kirk’s death, only fuels political polarization.
Millions of people flocked to the internet to share their thoughts on the shooting, including those stating that they were glad he was assassinated or that his death was “poetic justice,” proving that this divisive rhetoric exists in liberals too.
As a response, a website called “Expose Charlie’s Murderers” (later renamed the “Charlie Kirk Data Foundation”) was created anonymously to post about anyone who wrote, liked, or interacted with anything negative about Kirk. Those doxxed had their personal information, such as their name and address, made public.
In the short amount of time the website was up, it stated that it had received thousands of submissions from “activists” calling for further violence. The majority of those doxxed were not public or political figures.
Some extremist conservative figures are aiding the doxxing efforts by threatening those who disrespect Kirk. Laura Loomer, a right-wing political activist, threatened in a X post to ruin someone’s “future professional aspirations if [they] are sick enough to celebrate his death,” while Joey Mannarino, a right-wing influencer, called his followers to identify their name and place of employment using reverse-image search on people’s profile pictures, according to NPR. Even Vice President JD Vance, while hosting Kirk’s podcast, jumped on the bandwagon by telling viewers to call people’s employers if they revel in Kirk’s death.
This rhetoric quickly turned to action: school teachers, healthcare workers, and even an university’s assistant dean were fired for incendiary comments made on social media. In the journalistic world, MSNBC fired their senior political analyst, Matthew Dowd, after he suggested that Kirk’s death was caused by his own divisive rhetoric.
In other words, the consequence to criticizing Kirk, and therefore the Trump administration, is a punishment—one that could ruin reputations and careers.
As a result, the New Trier News has been hesitant to cover Kirk’s death. Student journalists should not have to self censor in fear of doxxing or other forms of dangerous backlash to their reporting.
Student free speech is protected under the First Amendment, yet in this age of political violence and the ostracism of political debate, this protection is under attack.
In order to protect free speech, people need to gain perspective by getting their news from multiple sources.
Reliable sources include well-established sources that fact-check their sources, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, which adhere to journalism’s purpose: accurately informing the public about current events. While these sources are helpful for understanding a current event’s facts, it sometimes implicitly includes the journalist’s bias too. Thus, it is important to follow multiple sources in order to understand a variety of viewpoints about current political events.
When used correctly, social media can provide valuable exposure to different perspectives about current events. The minimal posting regulations allow audiences to read other people’s opinions on current events.
However, the algorithms of social media are designed to engage users by showing them posts aligning with their personal beliefs. This creates echo chambers—users solely interacting with posts that reaffirm their opinions.
Solely getting information from one legacy media source or social media outlet can create one-sided views on current events, leading to unproductive political conversations rather than healthy debates.
Confirmation bias often results in aggression and eventually censorship.
Simply put, freedom of speech in America is being attacked. This all starts in one place: the controlling of the free press. Without the press, there is no separation between fact and propaganda, no accountability, and no informed constituents. The government, in discouraging journalists to speak the truth and encouraging those with opposing views to target the other side, is pressuring people into getting their information from sources that favor the current administration.
While not necessarily propaganda, these sources are extremely biased and can lead to misinformed conclusions. These conclusions can turn into divisive opinions, harsh words, and, in some devastating cases, outright violence.
Silencing journalists, and the public in extension, is an unacceptable practice, and it’s ruining our democracy.
Instead of gaining news from unreliable social media posts, start by reading a news article. Then, branch out, corroborate, and compare that information with articles from other sources; by doing this, you gain a more informed perspective about current events.
Speak out against moves of political violence. Speak out against moves of political censorship. Speak out against administrative overreach.
In a democracy, the power is in the hands of the people. Exercise it.