In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s high-profile murder in late October 2025, a wave of controversy has swept across the United States, raising urgent questions about the state of free speech and the boundaries of the First Amendment. From a Tennessee man jailed for a meme to a Georgia teacher fired over social media posts and a federal lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), recent events are testing the nation’s commitment to its most cherished constitutional right.
Perhaps the most striking case is that of Larry Bushart, a retired 24-year veteran of law enforcement in Tennessee. According to Heartland Signal and columnist Andrew Napolitano, Bushart found himself behind bars for 36 days after posting a meme online. The meme referenced a quote from President Donald Trump, made after a tragic school shooting at Perry High School in Iowa in 2024: “We have to get over it.” Bushart, well-known in his Lexington, Tennessee community for posting liberal-leaning memes, shared the image after Kirk’s assassination, captioning it, “This seems relevant today….”
Local authorities, however, saw things differently. On September 21, 2025, Bushart was arrested at his home by the Perry County Sheriff’s Department, charged with threatening mass violence at a school. His bail was set at a staggering $2 million. Despite the seriousness of the charge, Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems admitted in an interview with NewsChannel 5 Nashville’s Phil Williams that he knew about the meme before the arrest and did not believe it contained threatening words. Weems stated, “I have no association with the group that you’re talking about. I don’t agree with the things that they said. It’s unfortunate that that happened. We hear it from both sides all the time.”
Bushart’s case drew national attention, with civil liberties groups and legal commentators—such as Napolitano—arguing that his arrest represented an overzealous and dangerous misinterpretation of the law. Napolitano wrote, “Bushart has the right to think as he wishes and to say what he thinks and publish what he says, no matter how intemperate or indifferent or offensive, no matter how far from public norms it may be.” He continued, “Punishing speech, making up crimes where none exist, targeting an unpopular irritant and arresting without investigation are acts of authoritarianism and suppression of freedoms and are crimes in and of themselves.”
Despite spending over a month in jail, Bushart’s ordeal ended on October 28, 2025, when prosecutors dropped the charges. The episode left many wondering how a meme could be construed as a criminal threat and why due process seemed so elusive. As Napolitano noted, “A bail hearing can effectively be completed in 15 minutes. Why should Bushart sit in jail for a non-crime until a judge clears her calendar?”
The Tennessee case is just one example in a broader pattern of speech-related discipline following Kirk’s murder. In Georgia, high school teacher Michelle Mickens faced a similar storm after posting critical comments about Kirk on her private Facebook page. On the day of Kirk’s death, Mickens wrote that she condemned violence but was critical of Kirk’s politics, stating, “I don’t condone violence of any kind, and I certainly don’t condone this, but he was a horrible person, a fascist full of hate for anyone who was different. While I’m sad that we live in a country where gun violence is an epidemic, the world is a bit safer without him. I didn’t respect him at all, and he’s part of the hatred and vitriolic language we hear so much now. I pray that without him, people can be kinder and more tolerant to one another.”
After being asked by her school district to delete the posts and apologize, Mickens requested to consult a lawyer first. The district responded by placing her on indefinite paid suspension and then terminating her employment. Mickens has since filed a lawsuit against the Oglethorpe County School System and Superintendent Beverly Levine, alleging violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The suit also claims other teachers who expressed pro-Kirk views on social media or even wore supportive T-shirts were not disciplined, raising questions about viewpoint discrimination.
This pattern of selective enforcement has fueled a wider debate about the limits of free speech protections for public employees and the distinction between government and private action. As Napolitano explained, “The First Amendment restrains only the government. While it reads ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,’ today the amendment means that no government may evaluate the content of speech and punish what it doesn’t want to hear.” Still, he noted, “Private entities that receive federal funds—like universities—are subject to the Bill of Rights, and though some did punish speech critical of Kirk’s legacy or indifferent to his demise, those punishments were all unlawful.”
On college campuses, the debate has taken on a new urgency. In October, Wisconsin Republicans introduced Senate Bill 498, which they say will expand free speech and academic freedom. The bill would penalize universities found to violate its provisions, potentially even freezing tuition. Critics, however, argue that the bill’s vague language could open the door to abuse and force schools to platform hateful or extremist speech. State Sen. Chris Larson called the bill “DEI for Republican viewpoints,” while a representative from the University of Wisconsin-Madison warned it could result in “unintended adverse claims” and undermine constitutional protections.
The debate reached a fever pitch during committee hearings, with State Rep. Dave Murphy defending the rights of even white supremacist professors not to be discriminated against for their ideology. Meanwhile, Universities of Wisconsin Interim Vice President for University Relations Chris Patton stated, “We believe that our adherence to constitutional law and current board policy best serves to uphold this commitment [academic freedom and freedom of expression].”
The free speech battleground has also spilled onto the streets. On October 6, 2025, the Illinois branch of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against ICE, alleging widespread First Amendment violations during recent protests. Protesters, clergy, and journalists reported violent and illegal conduct by ICE agents—including the use of tear gas and physical force without warning. In a particularly shocking incident, Reverend David Black was struck in the head with a pepper ball projectile while praying outside the Broadview, Illinois ICE facility. Black is now a plaintiff in the ACLU’s suit, which argues that ICE’s “intentional and escalating violence” is designed to suppress constitutionally protected speech.
According to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, ICE has made over 3,000 arrests in Illinois since the launch of Operation Midway Blitz on September 8. The ACLU and other civil liberties groups warn that such tactics threaten to chill dissent and undermine the First Amendment’s guarantee that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”
Across the country, these incidents have left many Americans questioning whether the foundational right to free speech is under threat. From small-town Tennessee to the halls of academia and the streets of Chicago, the tension between security, civility, and liberty is playing out in real time. As the nation grapples with these challenges, the enduring question remains: how far will America go to protect the right to speak freely—even when that speech is unpopular, uncomfortable, or challenges the status quo?