Hate Speech Hypocrisy and the Politics of Division

by Bill Bernardoni

The murder of Charlie Kirk should have been a moment of national mourning. A human life was lost. A husband, a son, and a political lightning rod was gunned down. Regardless of how you felt about his politics — and I disagreed with Charlie often — his death is a tragedy.

But in America today, even death is no longer immune from politics.

Instead of grief and reflection, what followed Charlie Kirk’s murder was the worst of our political culture: finger-pointing, blame, and opportunism. The left used the moment to gloat. The right used it to demonize. And in the middle of it all, the president of the United States executed a complete reversal — after years of dismissing hate crimes and mocking “hate speech” concerns, he suddenly called for government prosecutions.

That pivot, echoed by his allies including Attorney General Pam Bondi, is not leadership. It is hypocrisy. And worse, it is dangerous.

The Left’s Callousness

Within hours of the murder, before the shooter’s ideology was confirmed, left-leaning commentators began spinning the tragedy. On social media, it was even uglier. Post after post declared: “He supported gun rights, so he got what he deserved.”

That is not political commentary. That is cruelty disguised as principle.

If you believe in compassion, empathy, or justice, then celebrating someone’s death — even someone you opposed — betrays those values. You can despise Charlie Kirk’s politics, you can fight his ideas, but gloating over his murder is wrong and indecent.

And this matters beyond Kirk himself. When the left embraces callousness toward political opponents, it undermines the credibility of the very values it claims to stand for. You cannot demand empathy for your causes while celebrating the violent death of a man you disagreed with.

The Right’s Opportunism

Portions of the right, however, chose not to pause and mourn either. Instead, they weaponized the moment to score political points. The administration and its allies quickly declared that all political violence comes from the left. Stephen Miller, both before and after the Kirk tragedy, went so far as to say on Fox News: “The Democrat Party…is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization.”

That rhetoric doesn’t heal America. It widens the gulf. It casts every Democrat as an enemy of the state and makes reconciliation impossible.

But the biggest hypocrisy came from the president himself. For years, he has dismissed hate crimes and laughed off concerns about hate speech. In his inaugural address, he mocked the idea that government should be in the business of policing speech. When pressed by an ABC reporter, he snapped: “Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech, so maybe they’ll have to go after you.”

Fast-forward to last week. After Charlie Kirk’s murder by a far-left extremist, the president suddenly declared that we need to crack down on hate crimes and even prosecute “hate speech.”

That is not consistency. That is political convenience. When hate crimes were linked to right-wing extremists, the president ignored them. Now that the violence came from the left, he has discovered a newfound passion for criminalizing speech.

Pam Bondi’s Recklessness

Pam Bondi joined the chorus on The Katie Miller Podcast, saying: “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.”

That’s reckless. Bondi is a lawyer. She knows the First Amendment doesn’t carve out exceptions for “hate speech.” In America, speech — even ugly, offensive, disgusting speech — is protected. The government doesn’t get to decide which words are criminal.

Confusing speech with violence is both unconstitutional and dangerous. Because once you empower the government to decide what counts as “hate,” you’ve handed politicians the authority to silence opponents. And history shows they will.

The temptation to legislate against hate speech is understandable, especially in moments of grief. But it is precisely in moments of outrage and fear that our constitutional protections matter most.

Charlie Kirk’s Own Words

The hypocrisy is even sharper when you consider Charlie Kirk’s own position. He once said:

“My position is that even hate speech should be completely and totally allowed in our country. The most disgusting speech should absolutely be protected… as soon as you use the word hate that is a very subjective term.”

Think about that. The man who was just murdered defended the right to free speech even for people whose views he despised. And yet, in his name, political leaders are now demanding the government criminalize “hate speech.”

That’s not honoring his legacy. That’s betraying it.

The Broader Reality of Political Violence

Here’s the truth: political violence isn’t owned by one side.

Alex Nowrasteh at the Cato Institute has compiled the data. Right-wing extremists have committed many of the killings. But the left has blood on its hands too. Anarchists, anti-government extremists, white supremacists, Islamist terrorists, radical environmentalists, far-left radicals — violence is a poison that seeps across the spectrum.

Yet instead of facing that truth, both parties prefer the blame game. Democrats highlight right-wing extremism while ignoring anarchist violence. Republicans spotlight far-left radicals while downplaying right-wing attacks. The result is predictable: Americans hear two different stories about the same country, and neither side trusts the other’s version of reality.

This is how political violence becomes normalized. Each side convinces itself that the other is uniquely dangerous. Each side convinces itself that its anger is justified. And eventually, each side convinces itself that extreme measures are acceptable.

The Social Media Effect

Social media has poured gasoline on the fire.

Algorithms reward outrage. They push us deeper into echo chambers. They make tragedy into content. They turn neighbors into enemies. They ensure that grief is not met with compassion, but with cynicism, cruelty, and memes.

Charlie Kirk’s murder wasn’t just a loss of life. It was also raw material for the outrage machine. Both sides cashed in — with likes, with clicks, with fundraising emails. The incentive structure of modern politics doesn’t reward empathy. It rewards division.

And until that changes, nothing else will.

What This Says About Us

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: both sides said reckless, destructive things in the wake of the Kirk tragedy. The left’s cruelty and the right’s opportunism are two sides of the same coin.

But maybe the way to honor Charlie Kirk is to refuse to play that game. To say: Enough.

Enough with the hypocrisy. Enough with the finger-pointing. Enough with criminalizing speech you don’t like.

Because if we can’t even mourn the death of a fellow citizen without turning it into a political weapon, then we are in far deeper trouble than we admit.

A Call Back to Principle

The principle that makes America worth fighting for is simple: speech is free. Violence is not.

You don’t have to agree with Charlie Kirk. You don’t have to admire his politics. But if his death teaches us anything, it should be that defending free speech is not optional — it’s the core of who we are as a country.

Instead of exploiting his murder to demonize the other side, let’s use it as a moment to recommit to that principle. Let’s stop feeding the outrage machine. Let’s stop treating every tragedy as a cudgel. Let’s reclaim a little peace before we lose the ability to find it at all.

Listen for More on America’s News Hour

Listen here: America’s News Hour on Spreaker