Killing the Conversation

In the wake of a shocking political assassination in America, questions about free speech feel more urgent than ever. Is speech always a right, no matter the risks, or does it carry responsibilities that society cannot ignore? When voices are silenced — by censorship, by “cancel culture,” or by violence — what does that do to democracy itself?

This month's Philosophy in Pubs will dive into the tricky terrain where freedom, responsibility, and danger collide. Should free speech be absolute, even when it offends, provokes, or inflames? Where exactly is the line between passionate rhetoric and incitement to harm?

Charlie Kirk was known for promoting highly polarising opinions, from equating abortion with the Holocaust to denying transgender identities and making sweeping statements about race and immigration. His rhetoric often sparked heated debate and, for some, questions about the boundaries of acceptable public speech. Should statements like these be protected under free speech, even when they offend or marginalize others?

While U.S. law broadly protects even controversial and inflammatory speech, many countries draw legal lines — for example, banning Holocaust denial or hate speech — in order to protect social cohesion and vulnerable groups. Kirk’s views force us to ask: does the right to speak freely extend to claims that can harm or incite division, or should society impose limits to prevent real-world consequences?

As always, there’ll be no lectures and no single “right” answers — just ideas scattered across tables, beer in hand, and plenty of lively (and loud) conversation.