By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In Tennessee, a felony charge against Larry Bushart, who was jailed for over a month, has been dropped following a Facebook post regarding conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Bushart’s arrest on a charge of threatening mass violence at a school sparked concerns from free speech advocates who believed it was politically motivated. The post in question was a meme referencing a school shooting, which authorities said caused alarm in the community despite the post referencing a school in Iowa. Bushart was released after prosecutors dismissed the charge, and neither the sheriff nor the local district attorney have commented on the reason for the charge being dropped.
Read the original article here
Felony dropped after a man spent a month in a Tennessee jail for a Charlie Kirk post, and it’s difficult not to be floored by the sheer absurdity of it all. It seems almost unbelievable that someone could be arrested, charged, and held in jail for an entire month, all because of something they posted on the internet – a meme, no less. And the meme wasn’t even a direct threat!
The level of overreach is staggering. We’re talking about a former law enforcement officer, held on a $2 million bail for a social media post that, at its core, expressed a critical viewpoint. The post in question wasn’t even a threat towards Charlie Kirk himself. It was a meme featuring Donald Trump’s quote, “We have to get over it,” referencing a school shooting, which the poster, Bushart, clearly implied was relevant to current issues. The fact that the authorities perceived this as a threat is deeply concerning, and the resulting actions – arrest, charges, and exorbitant bail – are downright alarming.
It’s hard not to feel a sense of outrage. This isn’t just about Charlie Kirk; it’s about the erosion of fundamental rights. The entire situation screams of a chilling effect, where people are afraid to express their opinions, especially if those opinions are critical of certain individuals or groups. It’s about a judge deciding a $2 million bail, the sheriff for violating civil liberties, and the prosecutors who signed off on the charges. This could set a precedent for similar situations to follow. Where does it end?
It raises some serious questions about the priorities of the authorities involved. Was the focus on protecting free speech, or was it on silencing dissent? Was the response proportionate to the alleged offense? It’s reasonable to believe that those in charge of upholding the law acted in bad faith, with the hope that Bushart would have plead guilty to a lesser charge. The fact that the felony charges were eventually dropped only underscores the lack of merit in the case and the injustice of his extended stay behind bars.
This is a clear example of the dangers of weaponizing the legal system. The fact that a man was held for so long for expressing his opinion on social media is a direct attack on the principles of free speech. The legal system should be a place where those with power can be held accountable, not a tool to silence voices that disagree with them. The fact that the meme was interpreted as threatening, when it was clearly referencing a school shooting in Iowa, suggests a clear misunderstanding of context or, worse, a deliberate attempt to misinterpret the poster’s intention.
The public deserves to know the details of how this happened. The sheriff, the prosecutor, and the judge need to be held accountable for their actions. If there was a misstep at any point, it’s the right of the public to know what occurred. Why did they believe there was probable cause? Where was the evidence? This raises serious questions about the checks and balances in place to protect individuals from wrongful prosecution. This case should serve as a wake-up call, a reminder that our freedoms are constantly under threat and that we must remain vigilant in their defense.
The financial fallout for the Tennessee town could be significant. It looks like the taxpayers are going to be on the hook for a large settlement. The man, a former law enforcement officer, will likely lawyer up and pursue a civil suit. It’s hard to imagine that such an egregious violation of rights won’t result in a substantial payout. It’s also interesting to consider the argument that the poster’s “hate memes” were actually lawful free speech.
It brings to mind a troubling pattern of selective enforcement, where certain groups or individuals are targeted for their opinions. This is an attack on free speech. It underscores the hypocrisy of those who claim to champion free speech while simultaneously seeking to silence those who disagree with them. If we truly believe in free speech, then we must defend the right of everyone to express their opinions, even those opinions we find offensive or disagreeable.
There is a sense of outrage about this, and rightly so. The fact that the man’s speech was used to essentially “jail him for his thoughts” should be a major concern for everyone, regardless of political affiliation. This isn’t about liking or disliking Charlie Kirk; it’s about whether we’re going to allow the legal system to be used to punish people for their opinions. This sets a dangerous precedent. It reminds us that free speech is not a privilege, it’s a right, and it’s one we must defend at all costs.