The freedom of expression we take for granted comes with its inherent downsides.

The preliminary hearing in the Charlie Kirk murder case debunked pretty much everything Candace Owens has been saying for the last 10 months. The prime suspect, Tyler Robinson, was on campus numerous times; his DNA is tied to items associated with the murder; his “roommate” and Discord communications gave damning evidence of Robinson admitting that he murdered Charlie Kirk for his views. There was no exploding microphone, or Israeli angle, or French connection, or Egyptian planes. Apparently, Owens made a lot of money from her Kirk musings, and she also implied that Erika Kirk and other associates from TPUSA may have had some role in the events. We are watching in real time a mountain revert to a molehill: there was one killer, he admitted his actions, his own parents turned him in, his buddy testified against him, etc. Apparently, there really was no trap door under Kirk’s seat from which some nefarious shooter emerged and vanished.

One generally does not appreciate a freedom or right until he no longer has it. We learned during COVID that we no longer could go shopping, send our kids to school, congregate, or even stand near one another. I remember the eerie feeling of walking through the empty open market in Jerusalem, where there are thousands of people milling about on a normal weekday. The place was empty, and the few sellers and buyers acted as if they were trying to avoid some radioactive material that would harm them if they stood in the same place too long. Candace Owens used various platforms to exercise her right to freedom of speech. Now, she may face lawsuits if she slandered or accused people with her words; time will tell if there will be additional lawsuits and who will win. But let’s imagine a system where she could not say what she wanted. Would that system be better?

On the one hand, a person might say yes. Her comments may have hurt the........

© Townhall