When President Ronald Reagan was wounded in an assassination attempt in 1981, a woman who worked in an office in Houston said to a co-worker: “If they go after him again, I hope they get him.” Informed of her statement, a supervisor fired her.
The woman, Ardith McPherson, sued her employer. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision (Rankin v. McPherson), ruled that her right to freedom of speech is more important than political correctness.
That’s the law. Let’s see if the current Trump Court will stand by it when the cases of all these firings as a result of Charlie Kirk’s killing reach the court.
Will yet another right of American citizens — this one from the Bill of Rights — be taken away?
Rick Garr, Fort Lauderdale
America will endure
I am sad. Although I did not support the views of Charlie Kirk, I truly believe that in this country there is freedom of speech. His death brings to mind the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
My age group had tremendous hope with his election. It was a time for the young to have a positive voice in our country. We hoped for change. JFK represented out with the old, in with the new. When he was shot, a malaise fell over the country. Who knows where we would be today if he was able to fulfill his term?
Charlie Kirk was not an elected official, but he no doubt would have continued to be a powerful force in the Republican movement. I grieve for his young wife and two small children who must go on without the loving support of a husband and father.
But we will go on. We will survive. Let’s keep this in perspective.
Evalyn Katz, Boynton Beach
A view of his legacy
For those mourning the loss of Charlie Kirk and pointing to his role as a husband and father, yes, those relationships matter. But they don’t erase the legacy he chose to build.
Kirk was not simply controversial; he used his platform to normalize cruelty, dehumanize marginalized communities and glorify state violence.
His own words speak volumes: Executions should be “public,” “quick” and televised. “I think at a certain age, children should be made to watch executions. It’s an initiation,” he said (as reported by Newsweek, Feb. 24, 2024).
That’s not just provocative rhetoric. It’s a chilling endorsement of desensitization, a celebration of brutality as civic ritual. To advocate for children to witness death as a rite of passage is to abandon empathy entirely.
Kirk’s influence wasn’t limited to fringe corners of the internet. He shaped policy conversations, mobilized youth and helped mainstream a worldview that treats LGBTQ+ people, immigrants and dissenters as threats to be silenced or punished.
His brand of Christian nationalism wrapped violence in moral certainty, encouraging followers to see exclusion and domination as divine duty.
Yes, Kirk had a family. But mourning a life lost should never require us to also forget. We can grieve the human cost while still naming the truth.
Robert Rhoads, Oakland Park
He’s no martyr
America cannot allow Charlie Kirk to become a martyr for any worthy purpose.
Much of what he preached was born of bigotry. I was never misled by the boyish looks of the 31-year-old who preached white Christian nationalism, anti-LGBTQ and antisemitic themes on college campuses.
He was a divider. Kirk’s exhortations and misrepresentations (lies, if you wish) were protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, just as the FAU and University of Miami employees that you reported on were protected.
Both of them were singled out, for sanctions in one case and a firing in another, no doubt in an effort to avoid the punitive wrath of a certain golf club owner and occupant of the White House.
David Kahn, Boca Raton
Please submit a letter to the editor by email to letterstotheeditor@sunsentinel.com or fill out the online form below. Letters may be up to 200 words and must be signed with your email address, city of residence and daytime phone number for verification. Letters will be edited for clarity and length.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2025/09/18/charlie-kirk-and-free-speech-letters-to-the-editor/
