At a news conference announcing the apprehension of Charlie Kirk’s killer, Utah governor Spencer Cox gave an otherwise thoughtful speech. “Otherwise” because he also said that “Words are not violence, violence is violence.” Is that a distinction without a difference, and what are the ramifications if we accept that?

Certainly, Cox has well-worn expressions to back him up. One is, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Perhaps, but the traditional saying has a modified version, too: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can also hurt me.”

I recognize that may sound a bit namby-pamby, but there are also variations of the expression “those be fighting words….” Besides, if we accept Cox’s sentiment, then doesn’t that let hateful purveyors of violence off the hook, like Maxine Waters, AOC, evil Ilhan, Tlaib, Crockett… and so many others it would take pages to list them all? There was even a House Resolution (H.Res.327) to expel Waters for incitement of violence and rioting. Yep, her speech has violent purposes.

If we believe words are not violence, then why the uproar against leftist incitement? Why all the calls to tone down the political rhetoric? Much of the violence is committed by leftist youth; often their brains are still in developmental stage and they are particularly prone to impulsiveness.

At a minimum, there is often a direct link between the ill-advised words we employ and the potential violent reaction they engender. That’s why there is a category of “hate crimes,” though they are usually misapplied to elevate “protected” groups over others. That’s also why there are some limits to free speech that produce “imminent lawless action.”

With respect to Governor Cox, asserting that words are not violence sort of undermines Charlie Kirk’s Socratic approach. He welcomed vigorous debate, encouraging all-comers to “prove me wrong.” He was not an extremist firebrand, but a provocative intellectual gadfly who chose his words wisely lest they cause excessive duress. Lest they stifle free-flowing debate amongst the snowflake generation that ventured outside their safe spaces. In that sense, he recognized that words, if not “violent” in and of themselves, can certainly lead to that.

It may provide fake comfort in the moment, but phrases like “words are not violence” may gloss over their impact. If words directly engender violent responses, as shown over and over again, then why dally in such unhelpful platitudes? Indeed, the evil killer of Charlie Kirk inscribed hateful words on his ammunition, though their meaning is indecipherable to this old fogy.

At a minimum, there can be a direct link between words and political violence. Indeed, the “spirit of 1776” was inspired by clever words, particularly Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense. Going from the sublime to the ridiculous: words can also cause emotional “injuries,” especially amongst the emotionally unbalanced leftists who Kirk challenged.

Clearly, Charlie was respectful and civil in his debates because words do matter. Why? Well, for one thing, some choice words will definitely lead to violence until humans become angels. For sure, a rational being would likely prefer to be verbally attached than physically (faced with that stark choice), but even the former can cause distress. Let’s continue to hold Maxine and her illiberal ilk accountable for their violent words. More than ever, we need to honor Charlie’s legacy by speaking up, not shouting down violently. I bet that he appreciated that “the pen is mightier than the sword.”

Image: Pexels