Students Talk Political Violence, Free Speech, and Polarization in the Age of Social Media

A crowd of people waving American flags and protesting. Photo Credits: Hugo Wai on Unsplash

Rebecca Billette, Editor-in-Chief of The Powderhorn

Five years after COVID-19 swept across America, the United States is faced with a new pandemic: one of political polarization, violence, and a lack of compassionate discourse. While the issue has been building for years, the most recent flare-up occurred when well-known political activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at one of his public forum debates at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025. This event and the subsequent controversy sparked harsh outbursts on social media, protests, and nationwide arguments from Republicans and Democrats alike. Even high school students began expressing their opinions on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, engaging in digital arguments with their peers. This reaction is not unique to Kirk’s situation; however, teenagers nationwide have been finding it increasingly difficult to distance themselves from politics and, most importantly, find common ground with people they disagree with.

“There were two sides, and then there was one small group in between,” said senior Channing Jeffers on the reaction to Kirk’s death. “One side was, ‘I'm glad he's dead.’ Another side was ‘This should not have happened and we're praying for his family,’ and then, in the middle, it was just ‘A human life is a human life, regardless of political beliefs. We shouldn't be celebrating this.’”

In the hours following Kirk’s assassination, social media feeds were flooded with up-close footage of the shooting, which was uncomfortable to watch, and, in many cases, exacerbated the aggressive social media reaction that had already taken hold.

“The fact, first off, that there were videos that came out, pretty much as soon as it happened- it kind of helped just stoke that fear,” said Oliver Lewis, a sophomore. “It very quickly became a blame game for both sides.”

The release and visibility of this footage, in addition to the large age range of those with access to social media, led many to question whether those kinds of videos should be taken down.

“I want to say that it shouldn't, but that's also what makes social media what it is: the freedom to put whatever you want up there and then it's there for everyone else to see,” said Keatuyn Wuest, a junior. “But I don't know- I think that it's not good for specific audiences. As a whole, I think, yeah, it's right for those videos and stuff to be up because how would we know what's being filtered and what's not being filtered?”

One of the largest issues people took with Kirk’s death was the implication that political violence and censorship could be a response to people exercising their right to free speech. This issue was seen on both sides, with Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”, being pulled off the air after he made comments regarding Charlie Kirk’s assassination. His show was later restored by his network.

“I mean, Charlie Kirk was a citizen,” said Lewis. “He wasn't a member of the Presidential Cabinet or the White House, Congress, or any state government. He just spoke for a lot of people in the same way that Jimmy Kimmel spoke for a lot of the other side. And both of those people trying to get silenced is a really bad thing.”

The concept of censorship is not a foreign one nowadays, with prevalent literature and historical examples serving as cautionary tales of its effects. Even small acts of censorship, such as refusing to listen to those with opposite opinions from yours, have become commonplace, aided by social media and the ability to curate your feed to only the media you want to consume.

“I think it's important to express your opinions because, without opinions, there would be no political movements; there wouldn't be social advancement,” Jeffers said. “We wouldn't be nearly as open of a society as we are today. I feel like if free speech wasn't a thing, we would be a society that would resemble, like, Fahrenheit 451 or 1984- Big Brother kind of thing.”

It can be difficult to comprehend why such a culture of hatred and polarization has become normalized in the U.S., but many believe that the culprit is the more prominent role modern media takes.

“I think people are just more angry about politics than they used to be,” said Lewis. “I think on both sides, there's a lot of dangerous rhetoric being talked about. It's almost like a trickle-down effect from the top, all the way down to people who don't even really care about politics. Social media kind of exacerbates that because not a lot of high schoolers in the 1980s were probably reading newspapers very often, but now we're on social media and we're kind of being exposed to it in very weird ways. We have a lot of these echo chamber effects where we just hear all of our own beliefs being amplified and then somebody else brings in another belief, and that's completely foreign, and a lot of the time that's just kind of manifested as anger.”

There are many issues with only exposing yourself to opinions you agree with, one main point being that the amplification of one's own beliefs with no opposition leads to extremism. The easiest way to combat this is having structured and productive conversations with those you may disagree with.

“I think you should be open to discussion,” said Jeffers. “At least listen to the other side without automatically shutting them down, because, if you don't have a discussion, there's only argument, and argument doesn't get you anywhere. If you're not open to at least listening, you're not going to get anywhere, and you never know, a well-worded conversation could lead you to change your beliefs for the better.”

While the issue of polarization is one shared by many generations, teenagers are at the frontier of this new world of communication, the first to have grown up with constant access to social media. This may seem like a large burden to carry, but it is also an opportunity to reform the way our society views opposing political beliefs.

“I think the best thing that we can do as the next generation is to just start talking about it and start talking about it in a nice way,” Lewis said. “We should never raise our voice against anybody else. Ultimately, you're not trying to prove them wrong. You're trying to strengthen your views and your beliefs. 
And if that happens, then you know, that's how you become a good member of society and a good voter.”

The most important consensus many seem to have on how to combat the epidemic of censorship and hatred is to go into every political discussion from a place of compassion, intending to understand others’ perspectives, not arguing against them. 

“I think people take so many opinionated standpoints on it, and I feel like there's no reason to let it divide us as people,” Wuest said. “We can all have our opinions, and we can all let them stand, 
and I feel like there's no reason to hate one another for them.”

While recent events may have felt overwhelming for the general population, they have ideally showcased the tragic consequences of political violence, polarization, and censorship. The next generation of voters has a daunting political environment to navigate, but they can do so by using their right to free speech and not trying to take away anyone else’s.

“Ideally, [an argument is] not being defended by a gun,” Lewis said. “Of course, wars happen, and people should have a right to defend themselves, but it's not meant to be a thing where ‘We don't like this person; we don't like this group, so we're going to try to use our Second Amendment’. The First Amendment is the First Amendment because it should be used first.”