Speech is Not Violence - from outrage to understanding in polarized times

On Charlie Kirk, objectivity, free speech, and defending the right to disagree.

If you like reading my articles, feel free to click the ❤️ or 🔄 button on this post so more people can discover it on Substack 🙏

A few days ago, I reposted an Ezra Klein piece on Charlie Kirk. If you haven’t read it, it’s a thoughtful reflection titled “Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way.”

Here’s an excerpt…

“Kirk and I were on different sides of most political arguments. We were on the same side on the continued possibility of American politics. It is supposed to be an argument, not a war; it is supposed to be won with words, not ended through bullets. I wanted Kirk to be safe for his sake, but I also wanted him to be safe for mine, and for the sake of our larger shared project. The same is true for Shapiro, for Hoffman, for Hortman, for Thompson, for Trump, for Pelosi, for Whitmer. We are all safe, or none of us are.”

When I shared it, people got upset. Really upset. That surprised me and made me curious. What pushed them to that place? What would get someone so worked up?

Whenever I find myself in a heated political argument, or really any conflict, the first question I try to ask is: How does their position make sense to them?

When I engage in debate on issues that matter to me, I usually have two goals:

• I want to learn

• I want to share/teach

Both goals are better served when I try to understand the other person’s position and why it makes sense to them.

With the folks who reached out about my post, I realized something important: they were interpreting Charlie’s words as violence. Some even as an incitement to violence.

That explained their reaction. If you believe speech itself is violence, then it logically follows that violence might be a reasonable response.

So the first thing I did was reflect that back: “I get how you might find relief in the idea of silencing him, if you felt his words were violent and bringing violence to people.”

Then I offered what I see as our opportunity and responsibility as a country: to clarify that words, while they may be hurtful, offensive, or inappropriate, are not violence.

Defining Violence, Harm, and Incitement

When we disagree, it’s often useful to start by clarifying the terms we’re using.

For example, consider the claim: “Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric was violent and directly led to people getting hurt.”

What exactly is violence? Here are the basic legal distinctions in the US:

• Violence (strict sense): intentional physical force causing injury or damage.

• Harmful speech: can wound emotionally, create unsafe environments, or even encourage violence, but it is not physical force.

  • Examples: “Globalize the intifada,” “Islam is incompatible with western values,” “Trump is Hitler.”

  • These are inflammatory and harmful statements, but still protected speech. They are not direct and explicit calls to violence.

• Incitement or threats: a special category of speech that does cross into the legal territory of violence because it is directly tied to imminent harm.

  • Example: “Pick up that rock and throw it at the settler.”

Speech can certainly cause harm. It can be abusive, manipulative, or traumatizing. It can escalate situations that lead to violence. But those things are not violence themselves.

They are harm. And harm should be addressed with nonviolent tools: counter-speech, clear boundaries, or legal protections in narrow cases (like explicit racial discrimination in the workplace).

The Danger of Equating Speech with Violence

If we blur the line and equate speech with violence, we open the door to a dangerous conclusion: that it is reasonable to suppress speech with force, violence, or political power.

Suppressing speech, so long as it is not a direct and explicit call to violence, is ultimately harmful to society.

Our confirmation bias makes us believe our own views are virtuous and correct. That makes it easy to forget that the very tools we use to suppress others’ speech can just as easily be used against us.

For example:

• Many on the left feel that Charlie’s rhetoric erases trans people and their right to exist.

• Many on the right believe that abortion rights advocates are endorsing murder.

Both sides perceive these positions as harmful. But neither is a direct incitement to violence.

Your right to speak freely is only as strong as your opponent’s right to do the same.

The cost of suppressing free speech to avoid hypothetical threats, mitigate emotional harm, or help people “feel safe” is too high. I don’t believe we can maintain a free and democratic republic without tolerating speech we dislike.

Does that mean we must tolerate hateful, racist, or abhorrent language in public? For the most part, yes. The harm their words might inflict is the price of a free country. And in my view, it is a price worth paying.

Justice Antonin Scalia once noted that the question isn’t whether democracy is the best system of government, but whether it is the least bad of the available options.

I see free speech the same way. Supporting it is not the best option, but the least worst.

Why I Teach “Objective Communication”

This is also why I prefer to teach objective communication rather than nonviolent communication.

I love the principles of NVC, but framing words as violence always felt off. If words are violence, then violence becomes a reasonable response to words.

Objective communication helps us ground in facts, not just feelings. Sharing your subjective truth as objective reality often creates defensiveness. But connecting to what is objectively true makes you both a more ethical communicator and a more effective advocate.

What To Do When Speech Causes Harm

Harmful speech exists, and it deserves to be addressed. But the question is how.

Here’s an invitation: next time you feel the pull to label speech as violent, pause. Notice it.

Ask yourself:

• Is this speech actually inciting action intended to cause physical harm?

• Or is it simply an idea I disagree with or find offensive?

If it’s the latter, the response is not to silence it but to meet it with clarity, with better arguments, with objective truth.

And if you truly believe a speech act will cause real harm to a person or group, use your democratic rights to influence policy. Make specific actions and behaviors legal or illegal through the law. That’s how we strengthen society without eroding its foundation.

A Practice You Can Try

Next time you’re in a heated debate, try this practice:

Step 1: Look at the exact claim.
Ask, is this objectively true? Go back to the source; transcripts, full videos, first-hand accounts. Many viral “Charlie Kirk is a racist” clips don’t actually contain the quotes people attribute to him. Seeing the actual words makes them easier to debate for what they often were: bad, over-stated or ill-formed ideas, but not the hyperbole repeated online.

For example, here is the prompt I used to get to the bottom of the most egregious Charlie Kirk claims that I heard people mentioning.

“Can you please help me to understand whether Charlie Kirk actually said the things below. Please share the exact context and transcript of where he said the thing and what he was talking about when he said it.

• When I see a black pilot, I wonder if he is qualified

• Black women (Michelle Obama, Kentaji Brown Jackson etc.) don’t have the processing power that white people do.

• Gay people should be stoned

• Transsexuality is a mental illness

What are the other contentious claims he has made that people have labeled as racist, homophobic or transphobic and which of those can be objectively attributed to him?”

—

As you look at those answer, you will be unlikely to find any direct incitement to violence. You will also see a lot of evidence to refute the claim that he is a racist, and a lot of evidence to support the claim that he is transphobic.

Step 2: Ask if it incites violence.
Encouraging or inflaming is not the same as inciting. “Stand up and fight for our country” is dangerous rhetoric, but it is not the same as “bring weapons to the protest and use them.”

Step 3: Ground yourself in objectivity.
Can you bring evidence, data, or a clear rationale to your position? Orienting toward facts creates common ground in a sea of spin.

Step 4: Hold compassion.
Most people aren’t driven by malice, but by unconscious fears and beliefs. Ask yourself, why does this make sense in their mind? Very few of us are evil. Most of us are clumsy, conditioned, and trying to make sense of the world.

Mark Twain once said that true intelligence is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at the same time. Practicing that, especially in moments of high tension, is one of the best ways to protect our freedom, our relationships, and our sanity.

If you disagree with me, I’d love to hear how.

I’ll do my best to meet you with Saffo’s wisdom of “strong opinions, weakly held.”