So, Do We Condemn Killing People for their Political Views or Not?

And is political violence really ok with at least some of us?

By Greg Rabidoux

I am confused. Saddened. But mostly confused.

If ever there was one subject which should be a totally bi-partisan no-brainer it is that killing one's political opponents for what they think and say is not ok. No matter how much it makes you angry, upset, bewildered, frustrated or gives you migraine headaches or roils your tummy. Sure, we all know, or should know that freedom of speech is a guaranteed constitutional right in the very First Amendment just after Religion. And we all probably know or may have heard how the Founders valued political speech as the very lifeblood of our democracy. But it's impossible to engage in open, peaceful, and free exchange of ideas and opinions if those speaking are getting shot at by bullets with or without catch phrases on them.

But before we get to how to better secure the rights of all who engage in political speech, it seems there's a hurdle on the track of our democracy some can't seem to clear.

Let's call it the "however" hurdle.

As in "the killing of someone because you disagree with them, even hate what they are saying is horrific...however..."

Nope. There just can't be anything after a condemnation of political violence. Once you utter the magic word "however" or its close cousin, "but," you just took a big old eraser to the supposed condemnation. What was or should have been crystal clear becomes as muddy as a Louisiana river basin after a Category 3. And maybe just as damaging.

Democrats like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blame Republicans for making the traditionally symbolic resolution of condemning political violence, in the case of Charlie Kirk's killing, too partisan. After voting No, she then blasted any notion of honoring his "life and legacy" because she argued it (his legacy) was ignorance, being uneducated, and divisiveness.

It was a long and vehement "however." And while AOC certainly has every right to exercise her constitutionally guaranteed free speech, both as a citizen and even further with the "speech and debate" clause protections by virtue of being a Member of Congress, her remarks cloud what should be clear. Our democracy, our republic, simply cannot survive if the door to justifying political violence, even killing, is left ajar even a bit. For whatever, or "however" reasoning.

And a recent YOUGOV poll suggests that a significant percentage (11%) of those who identify as liberal either believe political violence, apparently even killing someone over their views, is somewhat justified with 12% not sure, Really? I wonder where or even whom they get their cue for embracing such a muddled and dangerously nuanced view.

I get that some on the Left may genuinely believe this symbolic resolution was more partisan or pointed than they would have preferred. But sometimes, regardless of party or political ambition or pride you just need to show you are human. The "however" can come later. Make speeches. Cut ads. Rally the loyalists. Post on social media. Win more seats. Have more legislative say. But now is the time for every responsible human leader to make it crystal clear to all those on either or no side of the political aisle who contemplate evil in the dark and pull the trigger in the light that political violence to silence free speech is never justified.

Dilute condemnation too much and, like bleach, it won't scrub away the stain of political violence.

Greg Rabidoux is an award-winning filmmaker, author, and screenplay writer. And while nasty names may hurt our feelings we all live to see and debate another day.