At the time of writing this article, less than a week has passed since the assassination of rightwing pundit and First Amendment advocate Charlie Kirk. Already, statements by Kirk’s family, information of the assassin, and news of the shooting itself are being analyzed and scrutinized by people of all political backgrounds, ranging from those in the highest offices of the United States all the way to members of the general public. Though thoughts and opinions are mixed and existing on a broad spectrum, the vast majority are nevertheless united in one central message. Summed up in the words of international relations major, Owen Bland ‘27: “There’s a difference between really hating someone and everything they stand for, and then wanting them dead.” Such sentiments emanate from the halls of Congress to classrooms across the nation and are felt no less here at Saint Anselm College. Bland also expressed concerns about a “blame game” that may begin in the near future, in which left and right-wing extremists gradually level escalating statements and accusations against one another until a war between multiple “deranged and extreme” fringe groups break out. Separate from the case of Charlie Kirk, yet equally disturbing, are the politically charged shootings of Minnesota state representatives Melissa Hortman (D) and John Hoffman (D) in June of this year. The tragic shootings occurred on the morning of June 14, 2025, and show us the terrible truth of political violence; it is in no way limited to a single side. Though it may seem that murder and assassination can never be the answer in a truly democratic society, there are still numerous posts circulating on the internet that stem from more radical ideologies on both sides of the aisle. Turn on social media and see for yourself; a quick search query will yield scores of posts, ranging from mild elation to jubilant celebration at the death of Charlie Kirk. One notable post, showing a distorted and caricatured image of Charlie Kirk’s face with the celebratory caption “Good Riddance,” contrasts starkly with those portraying his untimely death, his grieving wife, and the prayerful state of a nation in mourning. Comments were not only made in the wake of Kirk’s death, however. After the June shootings of the Minnesota state representatives, Utah senator Mike Lee (R) took the opportunity to make a jab at the Democratic party in an X post, saying the following: “This is what happens when Marxists don’t get their way.” To draw attention to a similar topic, many of the students and faculty here at Saint Anselm College are of the opinion that social media has played a significant part in the escalation of politically motivated acts of violence. In our modern times, social media is used to spread a plethora of thoughts, opinions, and theories both good and bad, sensible and baseless. John Bates ‘29, a history major, believes the following: “Social media can be a really dangerous thing. [It] can really feed into ideological extremism, and it’s possible on both sides.” According to several studies, for instance one performed by researchers at the University of California, social media has also been shown to decrease empathy in individuals by giving them a feeling of discreet invincibility. Separately and in the words of Saint Anselm international relations and comparative politics professor Erik Cleven, “I think social media algorithms tend to isolate people from counterarguments. [They] make sure that you pretty much see everything you agree with.” One final concern worth noting pertains to the First Amendment and its projected usage in the United States. The increasing prevalence of political violence, culminating most acutely in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, has sparked a degree of fear in young people across the nation. Individuals of different political backgrounds, including those attending Saint Anselm College, have voiced a decreased interest in speaking up about their political beliefs. One student, wishing to remain anonymous, says, “I [am] afraid the more I speak out about what I believe, the more dangerous things become.” As far as civil dialogue is concerned, it is essential that we continue to speak freely and respectfully with one another. Such conversations are not just important, but necessary, to maintain our democratic society, preserve our constitution, and combat the horrors of politically motivated acts of violence. As a bit of parting advice from Professor Erik Cleven, “[Open dialogue] doesn’t have to happen only in the context of a formal setting. It can happen in all kinds of ways. At the coffee shop, on a walk, or working out in the gym.”