Recent days have brought a lot ot angst and anxiety. The nation has witnessed a brutal and unprovoked stabbing. The locality was an additional shock to some, Charlotte, North Carolina. This occurred August 22, 2025, but only began noticeably coming across my news feed about ten days ago and has persisted since. The story is troubling from multiple perspectives.
The victim was merely riding a train. She was apparently attacked at random by a man who was then readily detained and arrested. Her name was Iryna Zarutska, and she had escaped the Russian invasion of Ukraine only to be inexplicably killed in North Carolina. The Mayor of Charlotte apparently resisted releasing the surveillance video.
There has been much news coverage of Ms. Zarutska, the alleged killer, and various allegations and recriminations. Interestingly, the family of the accused blames society: "His family says the system failed him." Some perceive the Charlotte Mayor as more concerned for the perpetrator than the innocent victim.
Some were led to comparisons between Charlotte and an alleged Texas school stabbing in June. That school district has restricted access to the video it obtained. In the resulting vacuum of actual data, there have been allegations that "fake" information has appeared on social media.
More recently, a shot rang out during a campus gathering in Utah. A gentleman of considerably more fame, Charlie Kirk, was killed by a single bullet during a campus debate. The police, FBI, and more poured into the situation, and modern surveillance video prompted a family member to identify and assist in detaining the alleged shooter. The killing was senseless, and at this time appears somewhat random.
Because of Mr. Kirk's fame, there were many recordings underway at the time of the shooting. Multiple individuals had video of the horrific injury, reactions, and the crowd's panic. In today's environment of ubiquitous cameras, that is perhaps inevitable when the famous are involved.
There has been much news coverage of both the Zarutska stabbing and the Kirk shooting. Graphic images are available for anyone who wants to search.
As I have read about these attacks and the senselessness of violence, I have also been struck by the ease with which news, gossip, and commentary travel. The world of social media has rendered every human with a keyboard capable of instantly disseminating their every thought. See Anonymity and Emotional Intelligence (July 2022); Keyboard Attacks (October 2024); Are you Hiding? (January 2025); Malicious and Destructive (April 2025).
Many in the wake of Mr. Kirk have found themselves criticized, pursued, and even punished for their commentary. There have been intriguing discussions online regarding the First Amendment, and some of those who suffered recriminations related to their online comments have decried their circumstances and questioned how they are not protected by that venerable clause.
As a public service, let’s be clear. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press and freedom of speech (among other rights). It prevents the government from suppressing, limiting, and preventing speech (well, unless the government can demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in its limitations), with the admonition "Congress shall make no law."
A surprising number of young people are viewed as critical of free expression. A Brookings commentary on its studies and inquiry is a worthy read. That 2017 exposé highlighted views of dissent, disagreement, and even violence. To be clear, violence is not an appropriate response to speech. The best counter to speech "is more speech, not enforced silence," as noted in Whitney v. California.
The First Amendment guarantees your right to speak as you wish. It does not protect you from the fruit of the seeds you plant, though. If you say something that is defamatory, the First Amendment will not protect you from a lawsuit, even if that bankrupts you. If you say something that does not comport with your employer’s worldview, the First Amendment does not preclude you from suffering harm as a result of your speech.
The First Amendment protects you from being censored, prevented, or constrained (subject to the “compelling interest” above). It does not protect you from repercussions or damages that you cause yourself with your comments or commentary. Similarly, the Second Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms, but if you shoot yourself in the foot or hurt others, the amendment will not protect you from harm or prosecution.
These amendments protect your rights to choice, not your poor choices when exercised. These amendments give you choices. Choose wisely.
Those who would post on social media should keep that in mind. That is not legal advice, but it is sound advice. And, despite being able to close your social media account or delete a post, know that anything you post will likely live forever in someone’s archive, server farm, or cloud (there is no such thing as a computer cloud).
One element of all of this, the videos, posts, and criticisms, is that children have near instant access to the World Wide Web and, therefore, social media. That access came into the spotlight again with these recent events. One headline proclaimed, "My kid has seen this, now what?" A valid question.
The Associated Press reported that some schools have striven to restrict daytime access to phones and other devices. Nonetheless, when school adjourned after the recent shooting, children rapidly accessed, shared, and suffered the recent graphic violence. There has been lamentation of that exposure, with some more specifically focused on the access without parental guidance or input.
Certainly, one might posit that the parents decide who has a phone and such access. Nonetheless, believe it or not, young people pass their phones around to each other and share. As "so last century" as that seems, trust me. I have seen them do it. A young person without a phone is no more than two young people away from seeing one anyway.
The fact is, simply stated, that young people today are going to be exposed to so much that we old folks were not in our youth. They are going to whether that is intended or not, whether there are protections or not, whether contrary efforts are exerted or not. That is not to say that efforts, protections, or intentions do not matter.
We owe it to them and to us to make every attempt to protect and nurture the young. There is merit in striving to shield them from the graphic. But there is reality, and we must know that the threat of their exposure to this is real and pervasive.
The Independent has offered some "expert advice" for parents. It may be of equal value to other family members. This advice, in a nutshell, is
Don’t ignore itBut don’t assume they know everythingProcess your own feelings firstMake it an ongoing conversation
Maybe that is pretty good advice for all of us? Perhaps, despite our callouses, aging, and experience, all of that is not as sufficient a shield as we might think. Maybe exposure to such events, graphic videos, and the hate and vitriol of the web and social media is not any more healthy or tolerable for any of us?
In fairness, and on the advice of my attorney, Horace Middlemier*, let me stress that I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, or anything remotely similar. I have no training in mental health whatsoever. Nonetheless, I think we all need to ponder the impact of all of this violence, graphics, and vitriol on our personal well-being.
Gone are the days when news came to us on pulp delivered at least hours after events. Gone are the days when news was limited to television coverage, editorial standards, and calm warning precursors. The news comes at us all with amazing rapidity, repetition, and intensity. There has to be some focus on how that impacts us, but more importantly, how it affects our youth.
*Horace Middlemier is not a real person. Any resemblance to any person, living or dead, is a mere coincidence. In this context, it is suggested that my attorney would caution me to include such a disclaimer.
