Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Free Speech

Tennessee Man Arrested, Gets $2 Million Bond for Posting Facebook Meme

Larry Bushart posted a meme on a local Facebook page about Charlie Kirk. He now faces years in prison.

Joe Lancaster | 10.10.2025 12:46 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Larry Bushart's mugshot, with a Facebook toolbar superimposed in the background. | Illustration: Eddie Marshall | Jcuneok | Dreamstime.com | Midjourney
(Illustration: Eddie Marshall | Jcuneok | Dreamstime.com | Midjourney)

After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September, many on the political right set out to punish anyone making light of the tragedy, or even simply being insufficiently upset. In one of the more brazen examples, a Tennessee man was arrested, accused of threatening a school shooting, and held on a $2 million bond, for posting a somewhat uncivil meme on Facebook.

Larry Bushart, a 61-year-old former police officer, posted the offending meme last month. In response to a Facebook post about an upcoming vigil for Kirk, Bushart shared an image of President Donald Trump with the quote, "We have to get over it," which Trump said in January 2024 after a shooting at Iowa's Perry High School. Text added to the image said, "This seems relevant today."

Bushart did not elaborate, but the context seems clear: Why should I care about this shooting, when the sitting president said I should "get over" this other shooting?

The image was one of several Bushart posted, and it was far from the most offensive. Still, it certainly feels crass; as people mourned a brutal public murder, Bushart snidely used the occasion to make a partisan political point. But it's certainly well within the bounds of average social media discourse, and you certainly wouldn't expect it to bring the attention of the local police.

"Received a visit from Lexington PD regarding my posted memes," Bushart wrote in a September 21 Facebook status. According to Sheriff Nick Weems of nearby Perry County, "numerous…teachers, parents and students" somehow interpreted Bushart's meme—with its citation in fine print about a previous school shooting at Perry High School in Perry, Iowa—as a threat to carry out a similar shooting at nearby Perry County High School.

According to the Perry County Sheriff's Office website, Bushart was arrested the following morning on a charge of Threats of Mass Violence on School Property and Activities—a class E felony punishable by between one and six years in prison and up to a $3,000 fine. Worse, Bushart's bail is set at an astonishing $2 million.

Mug shot and inmate listing for Larry G. Bushart, Jr, 61-year-old white male arrested 9/22/2025 by Perry County Sheriff's Office on charge of Threats of Mass Violence on School Property and Activites, $2 million bond.
Perry County Sheriff's Office

Under a Tennessee law that went into effect July 1, anyone posting bond must put up at least 10 percent of the total amount, and bail bondsmen must charge a "premium fee" of at least five percent of the total bond amount. Even just to get out of jail ahead of trial, state law says Bushart would have to pay a bondsman at least $210,000.

The Perry County Circuit Court website indicates Bushart had a motion hearing scheduled for October 9, but when reached by phone Friday, a court clerk told Reason the hearing was "reset" for December 4.

Bushart posted the Trump meme "to indicate or make the audience think it was referencing our Perry High School," Weems told The Tennesseean in a statement. "Investigators believe Bushart was fully aware of the fear his post would cause and intentionally sought to create hysteria within the community." Weems also told local radio station WOPC the meme "eluded [sic] to a hypothetical shooting at a place called Perry High School."

This justification is downright laughable. In its entirety, the post consists of a direct quote of a statement by the then-former president about a newsworthy event, with text providing context, plus a four-word phrase added. Bushart didn't even create the meme: The Tennesseean's Angele Latham noted it had been "posted numerous times across multiple social media platforms not connected to Bushart going back to 2024."

"Quote the President of the United States, go to jail," Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, posted on X.

In context, it's clear Bushart meant to suggest that since Trump previously said people should "get over" a school shooting, then they shouldn't be expected to care about the murder of a conservative public figure. It's quite a stretch to suggest this constituted a threat to shoot up a high school. Yes, a nearby high school happened to have a similar name, but that was clearly a coincidence, and there is nothing to suggest Bushart intended to carry out violence against the local school.

On social media, some have suggested the meme in question was part of a larger pattern indicating Bushart posed a threat. But in his statement to The Tennesseean, Weems specifically singled out the Trump meme as the offender, saying while the other posts were "hate memes," they were "not against the law and would be recognized as free speech."

Perhaps some teachers, parents, or students really did find Bushart's post threatening—though since it was a reply on a Facebook page for local news, it's not clear how many people even saw it. And even if people did see and interpret it as a threat of violence, that doesn't mean it meets the standard for a "true threat," in violation of the First Amendment.

"True threats are not protected speech but not everything is a true threat," David Hudson, professor at Belmont University School of Law, tells Reason. "This seems to me to be heated rhetorical hyperbole, which is an incredibly important concept—or should be—in true threat-type cases."

The U.S. Supreme Court created the true threat exception to the First Amendment in the 1969 decision Watts v. United States. Even then, Hudson adds, it made the point of distinguishing between true threats and "crude political hyperbole"—in that case, a protester's remark that if he were drafted into the Army, "the first man I want to get in my sights is" then-President Lyndon Johnson. The court agreed with the plaintiff that it was not a true threat but simply "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President."

"Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution," Justice William O. Douglas wrote in a concurring opinion.

Bushart's arrest would be humorous if it weren't so serious. He now faces a potential years-long prison sentence for reposting a Facebook meme that doesn't come anywhere close to qualifying as an exception to the First Amendment. Even if the case gets thrown out, he has already spent two weeks in jail and is set to spend two more months until his first hearing.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Venezuela’s María Corina Machado Wins the Nobel Peace Prize for Standing Up to Socialism

Joe Lancaster is an assistant editor at Reason.

Free SpeechCharlie KirkTennesseePoliceSocial MediaFirst AmendmentMemesFacebookCriminal Justice
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (123)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Chumby   7 months ago

    Did he threaten to shoot up the school or not?

    If so, $2M bond is reasonable.

    If not, reminds me of the “ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US” incident.

    1. Wizzle Bizzle   7 months ago

      He did not. I went into this skeptical of the headline, but unless Reason is actually burying the meme that did get him in trouble, this is some straight up UK praying-outside-an-abortion-clinic style authoritarianism.

      This guy's an asshole, but that's not a jailable offense. (Or at least it shouldn't be.)

      1. Chumby   7 months ago

        Thanks. I’m not a fan of TDS Lancaster, don’t want his spin, and wouldn’t trust his conclusion.

        Looks like it is #2 then. Incidentally, that’s what sarc also received.

        1. Sam Bankman-Fried   7 months ago

          Did you see the Kavanaugh guy that got years for a thought crime?? He had guns!! Omg, I’m pee peeing my panties!!! GUNS!!!

          1. Kungpowderfinger   7 months ago

            I don’t scour every article here at Reason, but this has to be the most dishonest comment I’ve come across since ENB’s “we let kids pay street performers, right?” (in defense of parents letting their kids give drag performers tips few years back).

            I feel you have it in you to take the top spot for lying. Keep on it, you’re at the edge of glory.

            1. Chumby   7 months ago

              Just a grey box to me. It never posted anything of value ever from any post from it that I had ever seen. Essentially roadkill that something later shat on and the sun’s been shining on it for a while now.

            2. Mother's Lament   7 months ago

              It's another one of KAR's socks.

          2. diver64   7 months ago

            You have to be kidding me. He was parked outside of a SCOTUS home after flying across country to get there with weapons, breaking and entering tools and confessed to plans where he wanted to murder 3 SCOTUS judges.

      2. diver64   7 months ago

        Asshole for sure but combined with his prior online posts his reference to Perry when there was a school right next to him of the same name was enough to set off alarm bells.

    2. mad.casual   7 months ago

      If so, $2M bond is reasonable.

      Question from the State of IL: What does the 61-yr.-old former (Tennessee?) police officer's pension look like? Out of curiosity.

    3. Nelson   7 months ago

      “ Did he threaten to shoot up the school or not?”

      No, he didn’t.

    4. Davy C   7 months ago

      Is a $2 million bond ever reasonable for someone who isn't a millionaire? If you don't want him to get out, don't offer bail at all. If you want him to be able to get out, the bail should be something actually achievable but enough that he won't want to lose it by not showing up to court.

    5. diver64   7 months ago

      Why do I think there is more to this story than Reason is letting on

    6. diver64   7 months ago

      This is interesting. Apparently this guy is well known for posting what many would consider violent or threatening tweets and facebook posts. The thing that got him arrested was on referencing Perry. This was talking about Perry, OH I think but he lives right next to another Perry and combined with the meme of Charlie getting shot it set some on edge.

  2. Quicktown Brix   7 months ago

    Larry Bushart

    His parent's really missed an opportunity by not naming him Harry Bushart.

    "We have to get over it,"

    Yeah, you get used to it.

    1. Incunabulum   7 months ago

      That was his twin brother - who they aborted.

  3. Scooter   7 months ago

    I'm old enough to remember the FBI being sicced on parents who spoke up at school board meetings and agents being used to surveil Catholic churches. Sorry you don't like the new rules, but those are the new rules.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   7 months ago

      I remember those days too. But to be fair Reason delivered award winning coverage of the Villarreal case which I think we can all agree was the story of the century.

      1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   7 months ago

        I remember when Reason largely ignored J6 detainees charged with ‘parading’ being held without bail for months or years. Perhaps democrats will finally learn.

        What am I saying? Democrats don’t learn lessons.

        1. con_fuse9   7 months ago

          Name one non-violent Jan 6er that was held without bail.
          The misdemeanor offense of "parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building" was a common one. You forgot the other parts of the charge - trying to make it look like it was something less.
          You are dishonest.
          Most, if not all, got pre-trial release without bail.

          The hardcore fighters, using flag poles, fists, bear spray etc. They were facing 10 years for assaulting a federal police officer - most got right around 1/2 of that.

      2. diver64   7 months ago

        Jesus, will you shut up about that cow? Reason finally stopped putting her in every story they did. Let's not remind them of her

    2. sarcasmic   7 months ago

      Is there anything that cannot be excused with "Democrats did it first"?

      Anything at all?

      1. Scooter   7 months ago

        "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'."

        Wise words.

        1. sarcasmic   7 months ago

          "But Mommy! Johnny did it first! That makes it ok!"

          1. Scooter   7 months ago

            Yep. At least until you Democratics decide to call down your own rabid pets.

            "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'."

          2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

            Look hypocrite. We're at the mutually assured destruction phase because you and other leftists triggered these abuses first.

            Even now you keep screaming any time someone who use state power to abuse a citizen gets held accountable.

            Your sole motivation, like jeff, is protecting this as a democratic tool yo go after actual enemies.

            If the above wasn't true you'd support the DoJ going after the people who abused the system prior.

          3. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   7 months ago

            It sucks when your bullshit is turned around on you, doesn’t it?

            Seethe harder you drunk bitch.

      2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

        Is there anything that can be done to make you admit it was bad when democrats did it? Because you seemed to support it and just hate the backlash.

        1. Scooter   7 months ago

          Sarcasmic: "Teacher, the fight started when Johnny hit me back!"

          LMAO

          1. sarcasmic   7 months ago

            More like "Johnny gave me a dirty look in third grade! That's why I stabbed him in the eye with a pencil! He started it!"

            1. Scooter   7 months ago

              No, that's what your leftist pet did to Charlie Kirk.

              1. freedomwriter   7 months ago

                Prove he was leftist.

                1. Scooter   7 months ago

                  LOL!

                2. Chumby   7 months ago

                  Saw a photo of him on Blue Sky and he was wearing a Trump shirt. He was MAGA.

                  1. Bruce D   7 months ago

                    Link? URL? When? He could have changed his mind.

            2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

              And this shows sarcs true beliefs. The fact that democrats did far worse, 30 Republicans and J6, and you call it a dirty look shows youre a leftist who is full of shit.

              Youre literally saying holding people who did bad things first accountable is worse than doing those bad things.

              Youre a leftist sarc.

              1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   7 months ago

                I wonder how many times Sarc got the shot kicked out of him after running his mouth in bars.

      3. Social Justice is neither   7 months ago

        You're just pissed people are fighting back using your tactics. GFY with your support for abuses and violence for only your side.

    3. Sam Bankman-Fried   7 months ago

      You mean for harboring farm workers??

    4. bacchys   7 months ago

      The FBI wasn't sicced on parents who spoke up at school board meetings.

      You're either a liar or a gullible idiot.

    5. con_fuse9   7 months ago

      Uhm, which parents were even interviewed by the FBI?

  4. Gaear Grimsrud   7 months ago

    Biden's regime sentenced Douglas Mackey to federal prison for posting a meme that wasn't violent in any way. Crickets at Reason. This sounds like a bullshit prosecution but, again, Reason has zero credibility on the issue of free speech.

    1. Chumby   7 months ago

      Sarc should be by soon with his “Dems did it first” and after-the-criticizing abuse/expansion of powers by the Dems.

      If so, he’ll have ASCII art under his post.

      1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   7 months ago

        You weren’t wrong. His brain is so desiccated from forty plus years of alcohol abuse that it’s about the only thing he can say anymore.

    2. Wizzle Bizzle   7 months ago

      Reason does suck at libertarianism. Joe Biden sucked at democracy, presidenting, speaking, walking, not shitting his pants, etc. None of that precludes the Lexington PD from being statist garbage and this being a terrible arrest.

    3. sarcasmic   7 months ago

      Biden did it first? Well then I guess that makes it ok.

      1. Chumby   7 months ago

        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣤⣶⣶⣤⡀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠁⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿⣿⣧⣀⠀⠀
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢺⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⣬⣻⢿⣿⣿⡦
        ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⠛⠁
        ⠀⠀⠀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣽⣿⡿⠁⠀⠀
        ⠀⢀⡠⣿⣷⣤⡀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀
        ⠰⠿ SARC ⠿⠇⠀⠠⠿⠿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀

        1. Wizzle Bizzle   7 months ago

          Holy fucking shit, Chumby. That made my year.

        2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

          Lol. Bookmarked this

          1. Chumby   7 months ago

            Sarc has so much straw and shit that he could combine them into blocks, make an adobe house, and ditch his cardboard box.

        3. Nelson   7 months ago

          That’s actually quite impressive. And funny.

          If only you could use your powers for good.

          1. Chumby   7 months ago

            Sorry. Those powers are only used for great.

      2. Scooter   7 months ago

        We've learned well from Lefty.

        1. sarcasmic   7 months ago

          Is there wrongdoing by people you like that you won't excuse with something done by some Democrat?

          1. Scooter   7 months ago

            Not as long as you Democratics refuse to call out your own.

            "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin' "

            1. sarcasmic   7 months ago

              "Tu quoque! Tu quoque!"

              1. Scooter   7 months ago

                Let me know when your Democrat Gubernatorial candidate in VA ever decides that wishing the children of one's political opponents were murdered is a bad thing to say.

                "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'."

                LMFAL

                1. sarcasmic   7 months ago

                  Sorry buddy, but I'm not the imaginary enemy you practiced your arguments against while driving to work this morning.

                  1. Scooter   7 months ago

                    I'm not your 'buddy', lefty.

                    That would imply we're operating on similar levels.

                    Learn to respect your betters.

                  2. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   7 months ago

                    No, you’re a real enemy. Our enemy, an enemy of our constitutional republic, and an enemy of the rule of law.

              2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

                Is equality under law and government an ideal or not sarc?

                1. Chumby   7 months ago

                  Sarc cares about the who, not the what.

    4. Calibertarian   7 months ago

      "Biden's regime sentenced Douglas Mackey to federal prison for posting a meme that wasn't violent in any way. Crickets at Reason."

      Why lie, when your lies are so easy to check? Here are links to Reason stories discussing the Douglass Mackey case:

      https://reason.com/2023/10/20/hes-going-to-prison-for-twitter-trolling-thats-not-justice/?nab=0

      https://reason.com/2023/02/13/can-the-feds-prosecute-douglass-mackey-for-his-twitter-trolling/?nab=0

      https://reason.com/2024/08/08/tim-walz-was-dead-wrong-about-misinformation-and-free-speech/?nab=0

      https://reason.com/volokh/2025/07/09/douglass-mackeys-vote-by-text-meme-conviction-reversed-citing-insufficient-evidence-of-conspiracy/?nab=0

      https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/16/amicus-brief-related-to-the-mackey-vote-by-text-meme-prosecution/?nab=0

      https://reason.com/volokh/2021/02/10/the-vote-by-tweet-memes-prosecution/?nab=0

      That's three stories on the main Reason news site, plus three by Eugene Volokh in his blog section. Eugene has at least three or four more posts about Mackey.

    5. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

      Basically my take as well. Reason ignored it for less. And like sarc, only outraged when applied to a Democrat. It makes me question if they support equal application of laws or not.

      1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   7 months ago

        They do not. The law is whatever they say it is on any given day. Another reason they have to go.

      2. Bloodaxe   7 months ago

        Ignored what, Douglass Mackey? You mean 3 articles here on Reason (see my post below) and a number on the Volokh Conspiracy is ignored? Seems like you are the one doing the ignoring.

    6. mad.casual   7 months ago

      Two *million* dollar bond! Who do they think this guy is? Alex Jones?!

      Go fuck yourself Lancaster.

    7. MasterThief   7 months ago

      I have zero faith that he is accurately relying any of this info. If the story is about posts on social media then show them to us rather than giving scattered pieces of an explanation for them. It's one of the first principles of storytelling and applies to journalism: show, don't tell.
      My skepticism is high when the reaction is extremely out of line with the offense. Typically when that is the case it is because the writer intentionally leaves out context and details.

    8. freedomwriter   7 months ago

      A jury convicted him.

    9. bacchys   7 months ago

      The DOJ doesn't sentence. Mackey's case is not like this one.

      MAGAts are morons.

    10. Bloodaxe   7 months ago

      "Crickets at Reason."

      https://reason.com/2023/10/20/hes-going-to-prison-for-twitter-trolling-thats-not-justice/

      https://reason.com/2024/08/08/tim-walz-was-dead-wrong-about-misinformation-and-free-speech/

      https://reason.com/2023/02/13/can-the-feds-prosecute-douglass-mackey-for-his-twitter-trolling/

      And that doesn't even count the ones by Eugene Volokh on the Volokh Conspiracy.

  5. Liberty_Belle   7 months ago

    The process is the punishment. Watch as they slow walk him though the system, keeping him behind bars for as long a possible before ultimately finding no probable cause at a hearing and letting him go at some Kavanaugh style "minor inconvenience" amount of time.

    1. damikesc   7 months ago

      Warned you that the rules you championed would not be fun for you to live under.

      Cry more.

      1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

        Leftist like him and sarc demand rules only apply one way

        1. Bruce D   7 months ago

          There should be a way to prosecute and imprison those who set that bail so high.

    2. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   7 months ago

      Kind of like the indefinite illegal detention of the J6 defendants for four years. Which you enthusiastically supported.

      1. Liberty_Belle   7 months ago

        See, this is why I don't pursue arguments here. I have never even mentioned "indefinite illegal detention of J6 defendants" and here you are spouting strawmen with the confident authority of a crazed scientologist. And proclaimed that I enthusiastically supported something that I've never talked about ... like some kind of gotcha. You are either a lunatic or intentionally disingenuous.

  6. Zeb   7 months ago

    Yeah, I have no idea how you interpret any of that as a threat to shoot up a school.

    1. Wizzle Bizzle   7 months ago

      By being a hyper-partisan twat with some authority to ruin your political enemy's life.

    2. Scooter   7 months ago

      Same way a bunch of Twitter memes were "Conspiracy to commit election interference".

    3. Nelson   7 months ago

      MAGA can turn the most innocuous things into the scandal of the century, with zero logical support. There are people who barely have enough brainpower to remember their name who can see this is bullshit.

      And since Charle Kirk said, “ I think it’s worth the cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”, it shouldn’t even be controversial. Kirk himself being one of the acceptable deaths that he was referring to is just a “Karma is a bitch” moment.

      The fragility of conservatives is pretty mindblowing, since not too long ago they were the ones calling everyone “snowflakes”.

      1. Sam Bankman-Fried   7 months ago

        The right wing echo chamber excels at making mountains out of molehills. So the first illegal didn’t commit murder under Biden but they made their supporters believe that was the case. Manbij and Manda Bay are not even known about but Benghazi and Abbey Gate are worse than the 7000 fallen in the GWOT or Beirut Marine Barracks. And my favorite is Trump assassinating a little American girl but Republicans obsessing over Obama killing her military age brother.

      2. See.More   7 months ago

        The fragility of conservatives is pretty mindblowing, since not too long ago they were the ones calling everyone “snowflakes”.

        Yeah... conservatives are sooooo fragile that they need safe spaces with nap time spots and coloring books to retreat to when someone expresses an "offensive" idea, or trigger warnings for material that might make them uncomfortable.

        Oh. Wait.

      3. Bruce D   7 months ago

        “ I think it’s worth the cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”, it shouldn’t even be controversial. Kirk himself being one of the acceptable deaths that he was referring to is just a “Karma is a bitch” moment.

        Then Kirk died for his beliefs. In that sense, he died a hero.

  7. Jim Logajan   7 months ago

    "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

  8. sarcasmic   7 months ago

    At this point I'm quite certain that the next time a high profile Democrat is murdered, Trump and his defenders will cite Kirk and say it's just payback.

    1. Scooter   7 months ago

      The same way the Left justified the murder of the Dallas police officers during Obama's tenure?

      1. sarcasmic   7 months ago

        "Democrats excused murder first, so it will be ok when I do it!"

        You're a sick little fuck, justifying murder over partisan politics. Get a life.

        1. Scooter   7 months ago

          You sound angry. I hope you don't own any firearms (legally, or otherwise).

          1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

            He admits he is a bad shot anyways.

            sarcasmic 4 years ago
            Flag Comment
            Mute User
            I don't carry a gun. I'm not a great shot and I lack training. Doing so would be inviting trouble that I don't know how to handle.

            So I don't put myself into the situation this kid put himself into.

            It just sucks.

            It just sucks was Rittenhouse being found not guilty btw

            1. Scooter   7 months ago

              Reminds me of the joke: "What's the difference between Lebron James and Kyle Rittenhouse? Rittenhouse is better on defense and can make shots under pressure."

        2. Social Justice is neither   7 months ago

          Except that's exactly you and a sizable chunk of your Democrat buddies cheering for death and violence.

        3. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

          Need your quote justifying babbits murder and j6ers getting 20 years for parading?

    2. Jim Logajan   7 months ago

      I've been rereading Matt Ridley's "The Origins of Virtue", 1996 and I gather from it that "payback" sentiment would be expected from the application of reciprocity, which appears to have been favored by evolution and a way out of game theory's "Prisoner's dilemma" problem.

      From chapter 4, "Telling Hawks from Doves - In which developing a good reputation pays":

      "Reciprocity only works if people recognize each other. You cannot pay back a favor, or hold a grudge, if you do not know how to find and identify your benefactor or enemy. Moreover, there is one vital ingredient of reciprocity that our discussion of game theory has so far omitted: reputation. In a society of individuals that you recognize and know well, you need never play the prisoner's dilemma blindly. You can pick those you know have cooperated in the past, you can pick those whom others have told you can be trusted, and you can pick those who signal that they will cooperate. You can discriminate.

      Large cosmopolitan cities are characterized by ruder people and more casual insult and violence than small towns or rural areas. [...] Big cities are anonymous places. You can be as rude as you like to strangers in New York, Paris or London and run minuscule risk of meeting the same people again (especially if you are in a car). What restrains you in your home suburb or village is the acute awareness of reciprocity. If you are rude to somebody, there is a good chance they will be in a position to be rude to you in turn. If you are nice to people, there is a good chance your consideration will be returned."

      1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

        That's the part most people dont understand regarding game theory. If there is a variable that is known or suspected, the decision tree shifts.

  9. Nelson   7 months ago

    Charlie Kirk was a terrible human who embraced a wide swath of bigotries, so while celebrating his death is awful and makes the person doing so morally reprehensible, it’s pretty easily explained.

    Mourning a bad person who advocated bad things isn’t required of anyone in decent society. Opposing murder, however, should be expected of everyone.

    1. Chumby   7 months ago

      Blue Sky assured me the suspect was wearing a Trump shirt. Thus conservative!

    2. Scooter   7 months ago

      Translated: "Charlie Kirk said things that challenged my religious orthodoxy so it's totally understandable that someone would shoot him in the neck.".

      Carry on, Lefty.

      1. Nelson   7 months ago

        “ Charlie Kirk said things that challenged my religious orthodoxy”

        No, Charlie Kirk believed and advocated for things that were objectively bad things. Misogyny. Transphobia. Homophobia. Religious and racial bigotry.

        Charlie Kirk was an adherent of the Seven Mountain Mandate, a theocratic and anti-American fundamentalist ideology that expressly and openly advocated the religious takeover of government (one of the “seven mountains”).

        “ so it's totally understandable that someone would shoot him in the neck”

        Yes, it is easily understandable, he was a bigot and a hatemonger. That doesn’t make it right, nor does it make it justified. But when you are an extremist who dehumanizes large swaths of the public, it isn’t a mystery why people hated him right back.

    3. Bruce D   7 months ago

      ^^Agreed. I also agreed with Charlie on about half the stuff but disagreed with him on the other half. Being a libertarian I disagree with conservatives half the time or so, agree with them the other half. Same pretty much for liberals. But, political violence is anti-libertarian, unless we're engaged in an actual war to resist actual tyranny, which we are not. We still live in a free nation though not libertarian. Political violence is not justified in the current situation.

  10. r   7 months ago

    Well, this will unfortunately make the admin even less credible when the lecture Europe about their free speech abuses. Sometimes a good message gets ruined by a bad messenger

    1. diver64   7 months ago

      Yes, arresting someone for silently praying outside of an abortion clinic or a person walking down the street in a Yamulk because it might offend the Muslim Invaders is exactly the same as a guy known for posting tweets of violence and referencing Perry which is right next to him. Exactly the same.

  11. Heresolong   7 months ago

    "or even simply being insufficiently upset. "

    Talk about a strawman.

    1. Vernon Depner   7 months ago

      I always stop reading at the first lie, so that's as far as I got.

  12. jimntempe   7 months ago

    If the meme was so easily NOT misunderstood why didn't you SHOW IT? But you didn't show, which means you are afraid to show it. Which means your whole article is a bunch of bullcrap.
    It's sad to see how Reason has become a fully owned subsidiary of the democrat party. It's turned itself in to woke garbage. It should merge with the Atlantic.

    1. Jim Logajan   7 months ago

      You didn't bother to follow the links presented in the article. Here's the meme that got him arrested:
      https://x.com/aaronterr1/status/1970272191884468241

  13. Jim Logajan   7 months ago

    At least two early posters, Chumby & Wizzle Bizzle, didn't really read the article very closely, because they professed ignorance about the content of the offending meme, but the article had links to it:
    https://x.com/aaronterr1/status/1970272191884468241

    I see there were several others professing ignorance, unfortunately.
    Reason article authors sometimes deserve criticisms, but I hope I'm not incurring too much wrath by asking some readers to exercise better care in the future. I have had occasion to make the mistake of not following the embedded links to original sources, so not holier than thou on this common mistake.

    1. Wizzle Bizzle   7 months ago

      The eff? Chumby asked a question and I answered it, specifically because I followed the links. I came to the same conclusion as the author and anyone else who looked the guy's posts. And the same conclusion you came to, I presume.

  14. Thoritsu   7 months ago

    For something as simple as this is made out to be, the article should be 2-3 paragraphs. This obfuscating diatribe is a mess. Who knows what actually happened? Certainly no one reading this.

    Does no one teach clarity? Is the clear answer unclear?

    I learned a LONG time ago 1) If you can't explain a thing clearly, you don't understand it clearly, and 2) if you can't explain it to a smart person (me), you don't understand it.

    Journalism failed...

    1. Stuck in California   7 months ago

      He had no intention of journalisming. He never does.

      Also, I'm pretty sure he's genuinely stupid. This is the first article of his I've read in a couple weeks and I got this far:

      or even simply being insufficiently upset.

      An assertion supported only by links to other Reason opinion pieces. He literally started by burying the lede behind exaggerated, emotional insults to his imagined enemy, which he then misunderstands and mischaracterizes. I used to think willfully, but I'm not too sure anymore if it's willful. I think he's just that fucking dumb.

      Anyway, that's Lancaster. I didn't make it to the second paragraph before knowing the article was bad and coming to comments.

  15. d.b   7 months ago

    Imagine this retired pig's surprise when it was arrested and hit with an astronomical bail, for being a prick. He's accustomed to getting bonuses and called a "hero" for that.
    BTW; Whether we believe in Mr Kirk's god or share his opinion on abortion; we are all Charlie here. Speaking ill of a murder victim is a dick move.

  16. MasterThief   7 months ago

    This one might be one where Lancaster is mostly correct. Other articles have better information, but I think the entire series of posts needs to be shown to establish whether people were right to take this as a threat. Did he have a habit of cryptic takes where they could be led to believe this was a legitimate threat? The $2m bail is excessive unless we have a corpse or an orgy of evidence of planned violence. I would think that if people legitimately believed it was a threat that a simple home visit with a response of "dude, I was just shitposting and trolling you conservatards" would have closed the case. Lacking such clarifying details means I'm stuck agreeing with the assumption that this is a batshit crazy reaction to his posts.

  17. Mother's Lament   7 months ago

    Lancaster being Lancaster I have absolutely no good reason to believe that he is accurately relaying any of this.

    And even if it's exactly as described, it's pretty hypocritical of him to complain seeing as he didn't give a toss about the United States v. Mackey.

  18. Jeff Mason   7 months ago

    Stupid speech is also protected speech. This smells like b.s.

  19. jonnysage   7 months ago

    This seems too incredible to beleive. DId anyone ask the judge who set bail why he didnt simply throw it out? Fire the judge and police for letting frivilous charges go fwd if thats all there is to this.

    1. Jack Jordan   7 months ago

      This judge reminds me of the warning of James Madison (rightly lauded as the Father of the Constitution and the Father of the Bill of Rights) about allowing ignorant people and ignorance to govern us:

      "A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

  20. Jayburd   7 months ago

    He'd be a great Reason commenter. From jail.

  21. Jayburd   7 months ago

    heads up, i ain't subscribing to shit after reading this article from poser crusader the comment section is the only entertaining bit

  22. Jack Jordan   7 months ago

    Speaking of hateful speech about dead people, it's worth nothing that in 2011 SCOTUS decided Snyder v. Phelps, and Chief Justice Roberts chose to author the majority opinion. In Snyder, SCOTUS justices emphasized the freedom of speech in America. More particularly, they emphasized the freedom to use even a particular backdrop and even to use particularly hateful messages about Americans who had been killed in the service of this nation. Picketers targeted funerals (and the friends and family) of servicemembers who had been killed in combat. SCOTUS reported that, according to one source, “nearly 600 funerals” had been “picketed.” So not only were hundreds of funerals and families picketed, but SCOTUS justices somewhat immortalized and significantly elevated what picketers said and did by protecting it by, first, granting the petition, and, second, writing a strong, detailed decision.

    The signs that SCOTUS justices went out of their way to protect included, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs” (improvised bombs used to kill servicemembers), “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “God Hates Fags,” “God Hates You,” “Fag Troops,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “God Hates Fags,” “Maryland Taliban,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” “You’re Going to Hell.”

    Some of the principles in Snyder v. Phelps also were reiterated in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis in 2023, which emphasized the following:

    “The First Amendment” means “all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” It secures the “freedom to think as you will” and “speak as you think.” It “extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct, including those who seek profit.” Its “protections belong to all, including” speakers “whose motives” someone considers “misinformed or offensive.” It “protects” each person's “right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible” or “misguided,” even if it causes someone “anguish” or “incalculable grief.”

    “All manner of speech” enjoys “First Amendment’s protections.” “A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all.”

    “The freedom of thought and speech” is “indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.” “[A]llowing all views to flourish” is necessary to “test and improve our own thinking” as “individuals and as a Nation,” so it is a “fixed star in our constitutional constellation” that “government may not interfere” with the “marketplace of ideas.”

  23. Chocolatejeebus   7 months ago

    "Larry Bushart, a 61-year-old former police officer,"
    That's all I needed to read to not give a shit.

  24. JesseAz (RIP CK)   7 months ago

    Keep them coming! Not the dems. The ascii

  25. diver64   7 months ago

    Fuck! Your on a roll, Chumby. That's some funny shit

  26. Chumby   7 months ago

    Sullum’s article from yesterday afternoon and the Dracula article from this morning might have additional offerings.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Whatever Evidence the DOJ Has Against James Comey, It Cannot Transform '86 47' Into a Death Threat

Jacob Sullum | 5.6.2026 4:30 PM

A Dispatch From the AI Psychosis Summit

Meagan O'Rourke | 5.6.2026 3:06 PM

No One Can Define 'Ultra-Processed Food.' Why Is RFK Jr. Trying To Regulate It?

Reem Ibrahim | 5.6.2026 2:35 PM

The War on Data Centers Is Here—and It Doesn't Add Up

John Stossel | 5.6.2026 2:20 PM

Republicans Want To Borrow Every Single Dollar of the $72 Billion Bill To Fund ICE and Trump's Ballroom

Eric Boehm | 5.6.2026 1:55 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks