12/09/2025
The murder of Charlie Kirk, for reasons yet unknown, is shocking. It is also part of a wider problem. Across the Western world free speech is being steadily eroded. What should be open debate is increasingly replaced by intimidation, vitriol and, now, violence.
Language once used to promote tolerance is often deployed to shut down dissent. Any questioning of self-appointed prevailing ideas—much of it nonsense generated online and rarely reflected in real life—is met with abuse. Accusations of sexism, racism or “phobia” are now routine. Once made, they are near impossible to counter and, as we all know, dirt sticks. The result is a public realm where people, including public representatives, self-censor. Moderates are squeezed out by extremists of every hue.
I have seen many posts saying that while they disagreed with Charlie Kirk’s views, he had a right to those views. Nobody should feel obliged to qualify their condemnation of murder in this way. That such caveats are thought necessary shows how far we have drifted. More disturbing still are the comments rejoicing in his death—unedifying at best, incitement at worst.
Voltaire put it plainly: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Increasingly the principle is inverted: “I disapprove of what you say, and I will destroy you for saying it.”
Ireland has become an open-minded and tolerant society, scarcely imaginable in my youth. But we cannot be blind to this trend. Free speech is not a privilege for the “right” people. It is the foundation of pluralism and democracy. Its suppression—by vitriol, intimidation, or violence—must be called what it is: an assault on the freedoms that define our society.
