I think this is one of those issues that I could not be more convinced that both sides are equally right.
Let us assume one is a militant leftist atheist who disagrees with most of what Kirk stood for.
I believe that it is perfectly sensible to signal one's disagreement before expressing sorrow and support for free speech, partly to ensure that you are not seen as a Kirk supporter by fools, and partly to emphasize that free speech is for everyone.
On the other hand a man has died. One should be able to express sorrow and support for free speech with no further words, caveats, buts, excuses or opinions. Anyone sensible reading one's expression of sorrow and support and should take that at face value in the knowledge that it is utterly irrelevant whether one supports or does not. The shooting of an advocate of freedom of speech is something that requires the expression of sorrow and the expression of support for free speech. It does not require anyone to know whether one is a communist, literal nazi, or anywhere in between.
I think it's a very valid and useful qualification. 50 years ago the principle was mainstream and widely accepted as a core tenet of our democracy. It clearly no longer is, and hasn't been for some time. It needs restating often - especially by our politicians - and re-establishing as a core value, now more than ever.
I agree. I think it is perfectly fine and even right to say, “Even though I disagree with this person on a lot of things, I support his right to say what he wants and repudiate those who would act in violence or support people who act in violence.”
What I’m seeing a lot of is this: “I agree that murder is bad, but if you are going to be a fascist, racist, and (insert other slur here) and going to say things that people don’t like, then you should expect it.” Insert out-of-context quotes here.
I never heard of Charlie Kirk until the day he died. But I feel utterly devastated by how far we have come from even understanding the meaning of freedom of speech let alone the vital importance of it.
Yes, that’s a different argument entirely. It doesn’t work in any situation. We may well be able to expect violent responses to anything - holding political or religious views other people disapprove of, being gay, being scantily-clad, being in a mixed-race marriage - but the violent actors remain entirely responsible for this. I might write more about this tendency to act as though ‘consequences’ are not decisions made by the person inflicting them and they have responsibility for them.
I think you're overlooking one of the important features of "While I disagree with XYZ, I respect their right to express those ideas." In addition to affirming the principled liberal value of free speech, the point is strengthened by referencing the underlying disagreement. It's easy, and common on all points in the political spectrum, to defend free speech you agree with, but more challenging to defend the free speech rights of your ideological opponents. Doing so stands out starkly as a genuine commitment rather than a rhetorical gloss. You do this as a matter of course, which is one of the reasons I value your writing.
I disagree with many of the things which the main speakers at the recent Unite the Kingdom event in central London have said or stand for, but do not at all accept that every one of the 150,000 plus participants in the event is therefore a ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ as several high profile commentators on the Left have suggested. The accusation and thus fear of ‘guilt by association’ is, in my opinion, one of the main things which not only maintains but actually increases the polarisation of society by discouraging the sort of good faith dialogue - or even just open-minded listening/reading - which could, potentially, lead to at least some greater level of mutual understanding and respect.
I really liked your post. Based on it I had a slightly orthogonal question, ‘why should anyone call a conservative a racist or nazi?’ (based on no other knowledge). Shouldn’t that disqualify anything else they say?
Thanks for your reply John. I’m reluctant to say that when someone ignorantly labels someone else a ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ it should then ‘disqualify anything else they say’; wouldn’t that then risk making us to some extent just as ignorant and unfairly judgemental as them? However, I would agree that it should make us more sceptical of their opinions and less hopeful of expecting any well-thought-through, evidence-based justification of whatever opinions they express.
I would like to think that we are all working on accuracy and precision John. Unfortunately, that is clearly not the case in some quarters. Thanks again. (P.S. It took me three edits just to write those first two sentences! 🙂)
To me, it feels like a distinction without a difference, maybe because I feel inclined to assumed good intentions of you, Graham and Stella? I would read your comments and understand that:
You all believe in free speech for everyone
You may or may not agree with things Charlie Kirk said
No one agrees with everything another person says or believes
I want to live somewhere people can have diverse opinions and share them safely. Because of that I’ve found myself sharing my opinion more (hence starting commenting on here), so have been defending free speech and also saying whether or not I agree with Charlie Kirk or whoever else.
In that context, I don’t have a problem with anyone saying “I disagreed with Charlie Kirk but supported his right to free speech”, we need to say what we think in the way we want to say it, isn’t that the point?
Oh yes! Do assume good intentions. Did it not read like I was agreeing with their reluctance to use that framing within the contexts in which they spoke, but defending the use of it in the one within which I did?
The argument that it is bad to mention disagreement because it dilutes support for freedom and speech and the argument that it is good to mention disagreement because it upholds freedom of speech? No, I'm not really following.
It shouldn’t be necessary to say you don’t agree with everything someone says (because no one ever agrees with everything), but if you’re talking about free speech then it is good to mention the disagreement because otherwise people will assume you only support their right to speak because you agree with them and not because of the principle that free speech is for everyone.
Ah, I see. There isn't really a conflict here on the level of principles, because the context in which someone says this and the motivations for doing so make the difference? Yes, I think so too and I think that was Abhishek's point. We shouldn't need to specify this, but sometimes we do and it can be useful in those contexts.
Again, I think that is a very disingenuous way that right-wing demagogues like the horrible, horrible Stephen Miller frame it. We need a secure border. We need a lawful process. But it should be abundantly clear to anyone paying attention that no one is even pretending to hold accountable the employers who create the incentives for people to come here and then profit off their labor for their role in this. If the president were serious about solving this problem, he would do that. Taking people who have lived and worked here for decades, minding their own business, and lumping them in with terrorists and committers of any number of horrific crimes is disgusting. Masked men grabbing people off the street should moritfy any conservative or libertarian. We should be figuring out how to stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigration without losing a core part of being a country of immigrants and without demonizing the people with the least power in the system. This whole "global elites" framing ignores that there is no better example of a global elite than this president and the tax cuts and other policies that benefit those elites at the expense of the rest of us.
The use of phraseology “I disagree with what they say but I support their right to say it “ reminds me of reading 18th century texts where the sentence is so long, you forget the point the writer was trying to make by the end of the sentence! Better just to use the social media quote feature, the writer said this and I think this….
I think this only works if the majority of us agree on basic assumptions such as the continuation of the freedom of expression. Otherwise, the very principles that we seek to uphold will be undermined by those same principles being turned against themselves.
I think this is a particular problem now because we haven't before had universal enfranchisement and mass cultural plurality in this country. Democracy is a relatively recent development here, and the political tensions between Anglicans, Catholics and nonconformists had been largely addressed before universal suffrage was implemented. The importation of systems of thought that openly promote the submission of all to a singular ideology is the spanner in the works of liberalism.
Were the Devil come to earth with his host and preach to humanity- with considerable success- that we ought to submit to him, would you still support his right to speech?
One problem is that we act like violence that is “political” is somehow different than the rest of the violence that we apparently do not feel compelled to perpetually announce is “obviously wrong.” It is very strange indeed that we live in a country where we feel like we need to make our position on the issue of murder clear.
In critical theory and many academic circles, some speech is thought to be violence. That is why political violence needs to be denounced, because believing speech is violence is a fallacy which promotes violence . And unfortunately, this critical theory is the foundation for all ____ Studies majors in the west and creeps into many non Studies majors as well.
I see no valid reason for ignoring that this is happening all across America.
Of course it should be denounced. People in positions of power should also act responsibly. But a political figure who is a victim of gun violence is no more tragic than a kid in school or a mom at a grocery store or a grandmother at church. Moments after the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk, before anyone knew anything, the president and his vice president indicated that the Democratic Party and leftists in America were responsible. Is that speech protected? Sure. Is it disgusting and irresponsible? It sure is. Pretending like there is something high-minded about using what is arguably our most sacred right to just act like bully is really gross. That is my point.
Don't you think that the demonization of conservatives by many Democrats and legacy media, calling a conservative 'racist' and 'fascist' for having a difference of opinion, is morally wrong and can lead to violence (since a significant part of the left does believe that words can be violence)?
Should critical theory be taught all across the country? Teaching offending speech is violence promotes not only political violence but other kinds of violence. Do any liberals condemn critical theory and the thought that offending speech is violence?
But John, with respect, that is circular. “Teaching offending speech is violence is morally wrong and can lead to violence” is not okay if it is when someone calls Republicans “racists” and “fascists” but it is okay if Elon Musk says the “Democrats are the party of murder”? Surely the people who, rightly in my view, believe more conservative theory ought to be a part of what is taught in academia can’t argue with a straight face that liberal theory should be banned. It just makes no sense. Also, there are many actions associated with this president’s agenda that I would confidently call “racist” and “fascist” (or at least autocratic) not because we have a difference of opinion but because it is definitionaly accurate. And if I were the president of the United States of America, I would take great pains to make sure I was very clear and specific about who I was talking about and what I meant so as not to put 80 million Americans in the crosshairs after a very emotionally charged tragedy. Leaders don’t do that.
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can't tell if you agree or disagree on these:
- liberals shouldn't call conservatives 'racists' and 'fascists' for simply disagreeing
- teaching offending speech is violence is a big problem
The above are general concepts. Whatever one person may have said (which I didn't mention or give an opinion on) is not relevant to my point.
I'm glad you agree to more diversity of thought in academia - that would be very good.
The thing that many do not realize is that critical theory is part of what is tearing the west apart. It's based on self doubt and rejection of western ideals (like progress and objective truth). It's goal is revolution, not reform. It's part of a nihilistic world view that leaves people empty. It creates a victimhood mentality and makes everyone feel like we're in a constant state of oppression. It's funny that the problems of the west that critical theory rejects, are actually worse in other cultures and civilizations, but that is ignored.
I'm not saying liberal theory (in general) should be banned. But critical theory, something that is decaying the foundations of economic and cultural success of the west, should be banned. If only for the sake of liberal social justice it should be banned. Critical social justice (via critical theory) destroys the possibility of obtaining liberal social justice.
John, those are two different points. It sounds like you believe conservative speech should be protected and not treated as violent - which depending on the specific speech, no matter how irresponsible, I would probably have to agree. But liberal speech should not be protected and certain liberal thinkers who ground themselves in critical theory should be banned. Do you see the problem there?
Also, I intentionally use specifics because it is a truck of the Tucker’s of the world to use really broad terms that mean vastly different things to different groups. The more specific the example, the easier it is for people to explore whether they agree or disagree.
My central contention is that in a functioning society we recognize that with rights comes responsibility. I am allowed to say whatever vile thing I want to say. I should be responsible about what I say. Of course that goes for everyone. But it is not valid to compare the speech of a some random liberal to the president and virtually everyone in his administration. I am using a specific example because not holding our leaders accountable, all of them, has had everything to do with this mess we are in.
"Nevertheless, I am going to defend the use of the phrase." I too defend the use of the phrase - after the funeral. Yes, people can but and counter but from the outset. I just feel everyone should have waited until he is buried. There was a time in my lifetime when most would have waited. Of course, manners and deceny are all but gone.
But this is another objection altogether. An entirely different framing. No-one has yet suggested that mentioning disagreement is disrespectful.
Do you not think leftists should have condemned the violence in the immediate aftermath of it? If not, why not? If so, how can they indicate that they disagree politically without saying so?
There's an argument for why I think it is important to say that we support the freedom of speech of people we disagree with and condemn political violence immediately and unambiguously in that piece. Did you read it? Would you like to engage with it?
I agree Kirk's political opponents should have universally condemned violence. Some didn't, but they did not get simple moral correction; they got debate. The only reply they should have got is to have pointed out the lack of any morality and decency in celebrating (perhaps pointing out they are saying it implies they too are legitimate targets) and to say one would return to debate after the funeral. Too many, in my view, on both sides, seized an opportunity to grandstand.
Spell out how I could have indicated that I am someone who disagrees politically with Mr. Kirk while defending his right to speak and condemning political violence without saying that I disagree with him politically?
And you are ignoring my point of view. Why the need to tell everyone you disagree with him? His murder was wrong irrespective of whether one agrees with him or not. You could have said free speech means tolerating viewpoints antithetical to one's own and his murder was wholly unjustified. But, you want to insert your seemingly proud self into this. Where did you debate or write about Kirk before his murder?
I think this is one of those issues that I could not be more convinced that both sides are equally right.
Let us assume one is a militant leftist atheist who disagrees with most of what Kirk stood for.
I believe that it is perfectly sensible to signal one's disagreement before expressing sorrow and support for free speech, partly to ensure that you are not seen as a Kirk supporter by fools, and partly to emphasize that free speech is for everyone.
On the other hand a man has died. One should be able to express sorrow and support for free speech with no further words, caveats, buts, excuses or opinions. Anyone sensible reading one's expression of sorrow and support and should take that at face value in the knowledge that it is utterly irrelevant whether one supports or does not. The shooting of an advocate of freedom of speech is something that requires the expression of sorrow and the expression of support for free speech. It does not require anyone to know whether one is a communist, literal nazi, or anywhere in between.
I think it's a very valid and useful qualification. 50 years ago the principle was mainstream and widely accepted as a core tenet of our democracy. It clearly no longer is, and hasn't been for some time. It needs restating often - especially by our politicians - and re-establishing as a core value, now more than ever.
Most excellent essay 👍
That sounds like a great idea for an article.
I agree. I think it is perfectly fine and even right to say, “Even though I disagree with this person on a lot of things, I support his right to say what he wants and repudiate those who would act in violence or support people who act in violence.”
What I’m seeing a lot of is this: “I agree that murder is bad, but if you are going to be a fascist, racist, and (insert other slur here) and going to say things that people don’t like, then you should expect it.” Insert out-of-context quotes here.
I never heard of Charlie Kirk until the day he died. But I feel utterly devastated by how far we have come from even understanding the meaning of freedom of speech let alone the vital importance of it.
Yes, that’s a different argument entirely. It doesn’t work in any situation. We may well be able to expect violent responses to anything - holding political or religious views other people disapprove of, being gay, being scantily-clad, being in a mixed-race marriage - but the violent actors remain entirely responsible for this. I might write more about this tendency to act as though ‘consequences’ are not decisions made by the person inflicting them and they have responsibility for them.
Maybe the key is to reverse the order of the clauses: “I condemn what happened to this person even though we disagree about x.”
I think you're overlooking one of the important features of "While I disagree with XYZ, I respect their right to express those ideas." In addition to affirming the principled liberal value of free speech, the point is strengthened by referencing the underlying disagreement. It's easy, and common on all points in the political spectrum, to defend free speech you agree with, but more challenging to defend the free speech rights of your ideological opponents. Doing so stands out starkly as a genuine commitment rather than a rhetorical gloss. You do this as a matter of course, which is one of the reasons I value your writing.
Thank you, Mike. That was what I was trying to convey.
I disagree with many of the things which the main speakers at the recent Unite the Kingdom event in central London have said or stand for, but do not at all accept that every one of the 150,000 plus participants in the event is therefore a ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ as several high profile commentators on the Left have suggested. The accusation and thus fear of ‘guilt by association’ is, in my opinion, one of the main things which not only maintains but actually increases the polarisation of society by discouraging the sort of good faith dialogue - or even just open-minded listening/reading - which could, potentially, lead to at least some greater level of mutual understanding and respect.
I really liked your post. Based on it I had a slightly orthogonal question, ‘why should anyone call a conservative a racist or nazi?’ (based on no other knowledge). Shouldn’t that disqualify anything else they say?
Thanks for your reply John. I’m reluctant to say that when someone ignorantly labels someone else a ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ it should then ‘disqualify anything else they say’; wouldn’t that then risk making us to some extent just as ignorant and unfairly judgemental as them? However, I would agree that it should make us more sceptical of their opinions and less hopeful of expecting any well-thought-through, evidence-based justification of whatever opinions they express.
Excellent reply. I should have said it the way you did. (I'm working on being more accurate and precise - still a long ways to go)
I would like to think that we are all working on accuracy and precision John. Unfortunately, that is clearly not the case in some quarters. Thanks again. (P.S. It took me three edits just to write those first two sentences! 🙂)
To me, it feels like a distinction without a difference, maybe because I feel inclined to assumed good intentions of you, Graham and Stella? I would read your comments and understand that:
You all believe in free speech for everyone
You may or may not agree with things Charlie Kirk said
No one agrees with everything another person says or believes
I want to live somewhere people can have diverse opinions and share them safely. Because of that I’ve found myself sharing my opinion more (hence starting commenting on here), so have been defending free speech and also saying whether or not I agree with Charlie Kirk or whoever else.
In that context, I don’t have a problem with anyone saying “I disagreed with Charlie Kirk but supported his right to free speech”, we need to say what we think in the way we want to say it, isn’t that the point?
Oh yes! Do assume good intentions. Did it not read like I was agreeing with their reluctance to use that framing within the contexts in which they spoke, but defending the use of it in the one within which I did?
Oh no I didn’t mean you weren’t assuming good intentions, I just meant I couldn’t distinguish between the comments myself, if that makes sense?
The argument that it is bad to mention disagreement because it dilutes support for freedom and speech and the argument that it is good to mention disagreement because it upholds freedom of speech? No, I'm not really following.
It shouldn’t be necessary to say you don’t agree with everything someone says (because no one ever agrees with everything), but if you’re talking about free speech then it is good to mention the disagreement because otherwise people will assume you only support their right to speak because you agree with them and not because of the principle that free speech is for everyone.
Ah, I see. There isn't really a conflict here on the level of principles, because the context in which someone says this and the motivations for doing so make the difference? Yes, I think so too and I think that was Abhishek's point. We shouldn't need to specify this, but sometimes we do and it can be useful in those contexts.
Again, I think that is a very disingenuous way that right-wing demagogues like the horrible, horrible Stephen Miller frame it. We need a secure border. We need a lawful process. But it should be abundantly clear to anyone paying attention that no one is even pretending to hold accountable the employers who create the incentives for people to come here and then profit off their labor for their role in this. If the president were serious about solving this problem, he would do that. Taking people who have lived and worked here for decades, minding their own business, and lumping them in with terrorists and committers of any number of horrific crimes is disgusting. Masked men grabbing people off the street should moritfy any conservative or libertarian. We should be figuring out how to stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigration without losing a core part of being a country of immigrants and without demonizing the people with the least power in the system. This whole "global elites" framing ignores that there is no better example of a global elite than this president and the tax cuts and other policies that benefit those elites at the expense of the rest of us.
The use of phraseology “I disagree with what they say but I support their right to say it “ reminds me of reading 18th century texts where the sentence is so long, you forget the point the writer was trying to make by the end of the sentence! Better just to use the social media quote feature, the writer said this and I think this….
I think this only works if the majority of us agree on basic assumptions such as the continuation of the freedom of expression. Otherwise, the very principles that we seek to uphold will be undermined by those same principles being turned against themselves.
I think this is a particular problem now because we haven't before had universal enfranchisement and mass cultural plurality in this country. Democracy is a relatively recent development here, and the political tensions between Anglicans, Catholics and nonconformists had been largely addressed before universal suffrage was implemented. The importation of systems of thought that openly promote the submission of all to a singular ideology is the spanner in the works of liberalism.
Were the Devil come to earth with his host and preach to humanity- with considerable success- that we ought to submit to him, would you still support his right to speech?
One problem is that we act like violence that is “political” is somehow different than the rest of the violence that we apparently do not feel compelled to perpetually announce is “obviously wrong.” It is very strange indeed that we live in a country where we feel like we need to make our position on the issue of murder clear.
In critical theory and many academic circles, some speech is thought to be violence. That is why political violence needs to be denounced, because believing speech is violence is a fallacy which promotes violence . And unfortunately, this critical theory is the foundation for all ____ Studies majors in the west and creeps into many non Studies majors as well.
I see no valid reason for ignoring that this is happening all across America.
Of course it should be denounced. People in positions of power should also act responsibly. But a political figure who is a victim of gun violence is no more tragic than a kid in school or a mom at a grocery store or a grandmother at church. Moments after the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk, before anyone knew anything, the president and his vice president indicated that the Democratic Party and leftists in America were responsible. Is that speech protected? Sure. Is it disgusting and irresponsible? It sure is. Pretending like there is something high-minded about using what is arguably our most sacred right to just act like bully is really gross. That is my point.
Correct in that all murder is tragic.
Don't you think that the demonization of conservatives by many Democrats and legacy media, calling a conservative 'racist' and 'fascist' for having a difference of opinion, is morally wrong and can lead to violence (since a significant part of the left does believe that words can be violence)?
Should critical theory be taught all across the country? Teaching offending speech is violence promotes not only political violence but other kinds of violence. Do any liberals condemn critical theory and the thought that offending speech is violence?
But John, with respect, that is circular. “Teaching offending speech is violence is morally wrong and can lead to violence” is not okay if it is when someone calls Republicans “racists” and “fascists” but it is okay if Elon Musk says the “Democrats are the party of murder”? Surely the people who, rightly in my view, believe more conservative theory ought to be a part of what is taught in academia can’t argue with a straight face that liberal theory should be banned. It just makes no sense. Also, there are many actions associated with this president’s agenda that I would confidently call “racist” and “fascist” (or at least autocratic) not because we have a difference of opinion but because it is definitionaly accurate. And if I were the president of the United States of America, I would take great pains to make sure I was very clear and specific about who I was talking about and what I meant so as not to put 80 million Americans in the crosshairs after a very emotionally charged tragedy. Leaders don’t do that.
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can't tell if you agree or disagree on these:
- liberals shouldn't call conservatives 'racists' and 'fascists' for simply disagreeing
- teaching offending speech is violence is a big problem
The above are general concepts. Whatever one person may have said (which I didn't mention or give an opinion on) is not relevant to my point.
I'm glad you agree to more diversity of thought in academia - that would be very good.
The thing that many do not realize is that critical theory is part of what is tearing the west apart. It's based on self doubt and rejection of western ideals (like progress and objective truth). It's goal is revolution, not reform. It's part of a nihilistic world view that leaves people empty. It creates a victimhood mentality and makes everyone feel like we're in a constant state of oppression. It's funny that the problems of the west that critical theory rejects, are actually worse in other cultures and civilizations, but that is ignored.
I'm not saying liberal theory (in general) should be banned. But critical theory, something that is decaying the foundations of economic and cultural success of the west, should be banned. If only for the sake of liberal social justice it should be banned. Critical social justice (via critical theory) destroys the possibility of obtaining liberal social justice.
John, those are two different points. It sounds like you believe conservative speech should be protected and not treated as violent - which depending on the specific speech, no matter how irresponsible, I would probably have to agree. But liberal speech should not be protected and certain liberal thinkers who ground themselves in critical theory should be banned. Do you see the problem there?
Also, I intentionally use specifics because it is a truck of the Tucker’s of the world to use really broad terms that mean vastly different things to different groups. The more specific the example, the easier it is for people to explore whether they agree or disagree.
My central contention is that in a functioning society we recognize that with rights comes responsibility. I am allowed to say whatever vile thing I want to say. I should be responsible about what I say. Of course that goes for everyone. But it is not valid to compare the speech of a some random liberal to the president and virtually everyone in his administration. I am using a specific example because not holding our leaders accountable, all of them, has had everything to do with this mess we are in.
Decency and respect for the bereaved mother and children suggests waiting until the funeral is over before equivocating with but ....
Did you read it? Do you not think it was important for leftists who disagreed with Kirk to visibly condemn political violence?
"Nevertheless, I am going to defend the use of the phrase." I too defend the use of the phrase - after the funeral. Yes, people can but and counter but from the outset. I just feel everyone should have waited until he is buried. There was a time in my lifetime when most would have waited. Of course, manners and deceny are all but gone.
But this is another objection altogether. An entirely different framing. No-one has yet suggested that mentioning disagreement is disrespectful.
Do you not think leftists should have condemned the violence in the immediate aftermath of it? If not, why not? If so, how can they indicate that they disagree politically without saying so?
There's an argument for why I think it is important to say that we support the freedom of speech of people we disagree with and condemn political violence immediately and unambiguously in that piece. Did you read it? Would you like to engage with it?
I agree Kirk's political opponents should have universally condemned violence. Some didn't, but they did not get simple moral correction; they got debate. The only reply they should have got is to have pointed out the lack of any morality and decency in celebrating (perhaps pointing out they are saying it implies they too are legitimate targets) and to say one would return to debate after the funeral. Too many, in my view, on both sides, seized an opportunity to grandstand.
OK, but you're still not addressing my arguments.
Spell out how I could have indicated that I am someone who disagrees politically with Mr. Kirk while defending his right to speak and condemning political violence without saying that I disagree with him politically?
And you are ignoring my point of view. Why the need to tell everyone you disagree with him? His murder was wrong irrespective of whether one agrees with him or not. You could have said free speech means tolerating viewpoints antithetical to one's own and his murder was wholly unjustified. But, you want to insert your seemingly proud self into this. Where did you debate or write about Kirk before his murder?