Free Speech and False Outrage: When Both Sides Miss the Point

When I heard the shocking news of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, my first thought was, “Why would anyone kill him?” I hadn’t watched many of his videos and disagreed with some of his views, but nothing he said struck me as remotely deserving of that level of hatred.

I actually admired him for giving a microphone to people who disagreed with him. His debate style seemed fairly respectful—even when the people confronting him were anything but.

So imagine my shock when I saw dozens of social-media posts cheering his death, with comments like “Trump next” or “Matt Walsh next.” I was horrified by the vitriol. I don’t particularly like Trump as a president, and I disagree with some of Walsh’s more aggressive stances, but to wish for their deaths was so uncivilized that I couldn’t believe people would post such things publicly.

I knew polarization had worsened, but the past month has revealed even deeper tribalism than I expected. Mainstream and social media alike seem driven by what I can only describe as “outrage porn.”

There’s more information available to us than at any time in history, yet many people seem more easily manipulated than ever—especially into hating “the other side.” In Kirk’s case, I found countless snippets of videos taken out of context, where the full clips showed his opinions to be far more nuanced than the “outrageous” statements attributed to him.

Why do people believe and spread such easily disproven outrage? Why do some who would be embarrassed to watch sexual pornography so gleefully consume outrage porn? Could outrage really be that addictive—or is it the craving to belong to a tribe that fuels our eagerness to paint “the other side” as evil?

Of course, the manipulation cuts both ways. I’ve also seen viral claims that celebrities were fired for mocking Kirk’s death—when in fact, they neither mocked him nor were fired.

The Real Meaning of Free Speech

As far as I can tell, those celebrities simply misunderstood the meaning of free speech, especially as it relates to the First Amendment. They signed a letter claiming that Jimmy Kimmel’s “free speech” had been violated.

But the First Amendment protects us from government censorship. It doesn’t shield anyone from criticism, boycotts, or professional consequences. A network can suspend a host; a company can fire an employee. Those are private choices in a free society.

Yet both sides used “free speech” as a weapon.
For some, it meant “say what I want without consequences.”
For others, it meant “silence the people I dislike.”
Neither is true freedom.

There’s a crucial difference between a private decision and a public punishment. When we call for laws or state investigations into “harmful” opinions, we cross from freedom into coercion.

Real free speech lives in the uncomfortable space between those extremes—where individuals must think critically, tolerate disagreement, and respond with reason instead of rage.

How Collectivism Destroys Nuance

Our political shorthand—“the Left,” “the Right,” “the Media,” “Big Tech”—turns individuals into caricatures. It invites collective outrage rather than individual judgment.

People defending Jimmy Kimmel’s right to speak after his suspension weren’t necessarily endorsing what he said; they believed they were defending a principle. Yet those same voices were called hypocrites when they criticized someone on the opposite side.

In tribal terms, every disagreement becomes betrayal.
In individualist terms, disagreement is the essence of freedom.

The Individualist Alternative

An individualist approach rejects tribalism. It recognizes that speech has private consequences but rejects punishment through state coercion or mob justice.

Voluntary association means choosing who you work with, what you sponsor, and what you believe—and accepting that others can choose differently.

That’s how a free society self-corrects: not through censorship or punishment, but through open dialogue, accountability, and the freedom to walk away.

The same principle that guides the Morazán Model—voluntary governance—is what keeps discourse free. Order emerges from consent, not control.

Why Moral Panics Always Miss the Mark

Every moral panic—left or right—claims to defend virtue but ends up eroding trust.
Algorithms reward outrage; facts get buried beneath emotional headlines.

This isn’t new, but it’s accelerating. As the loudest voices dominate, thoughtful ones retreat. When everyone fears saying the “wrong” thing, truth hides behind silence.

We can’t build free societies if we’re afraid to speak honestly—or to listen.

Reclaiming the Middle Ground

The way forward isn’t to “take a side.” It’s to tell the truth, even when it offends our own camp.

Independent thinkers have a moral duty to step into polarized conversations and model what honesty looks like—especially when it’s uncomfortable.

If we want communities built on consent and voluntary cooperation, we must practice that same principle in our discourse: listening with curiosity, speaking with integrity, and rejecting the cheap comfort of outrage.

Because in the end, the only kind of freedom worth defending is the kind that allows everyone to think—and speak—for themselves.