The world of American politics has been a whirlwind in recent months to say the least - and it's inevitable that this whirlwind sooner or later has an effect on the discourse even here, thousands of miles away in Malta.
The callous murder of Charlie Kirk was in the headlines across the globe, and it was also a topic of much discussion - even on social media - here in Malta.
Kirk was a person whose views were polarising. As far as political leanings go, his place was very firmly rooted on the right. He managed to gather behind him something of a movement of youths who held him and his cause in high regard, and is credited with being a catalyst for an uptick in support for Donald Trump among younger demographics.
Kirk's murder was reprehensible. No person, irrespective of their views, should be murdered on the basis of their political leanings or anything that they say. That is a principle that stands true irrespective of whether a person is agreeable, or disagreeable.
Such was Kirk's significant as a figure in American politics - and such was the graphic and public nature of his murder (close-up videos of him being shot were doing the rounds within five minutes of the incident) - that it sparked immense discussion.
The murder was roundly condemned, and those on the right - even in Malta - were quick to place the blame on the violence that is apparently being bred by those who are more left-leaning, and to pontificate over the importance of free speech and of the right to be able to safely express oneself without fearing one's safety.
That principle by itself is most definitely true. But for those on the further spectrums of the right, it's also where the hypocrisy starts.
Within no time, witch hunts were being held to expose those who dared say anything bad about Kirk after his death - any expression of anything than sympathy or empathy for Kirk was met with hounding. How dare you criticise a man murdered so brutally, they would say - an ironic position to hold considering that Kirk himself had called George Floyd, a black man murdered in the street by a police officer, a "scumbag."
Then came the saga with Jimmy Kimmel. In his talk show, he said: "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it."
That was all too much for the self-styled paladins of free speech. Kimmel was suspended after threats by the US' federal TV regulator to revoke his channel ABC's broadcast licence. Trump welcomed it and suggested that some TV networks should have their licences "taken away" for negative coverage of him.
In the meantime, the Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth announced a crackdown on journalists working at the Pentagon, saying that anything they write or report must be approved by the government, or else their accreditation will be revoked.
It seems that for those on the right, free speech should only be allowed to be so free.
Even locally, the paladins of free speech who pontificated over the left's attack on free speech because of Kirk's murder have been awfully quiet as these events - particularly Kimmel's suspension, something which likewise made global headlines - played out.
Such is the hypocrisy: for the far-right, free speech only extends as long as they agree with what is being said. If it's anything that they happen to disagree with it, then it need not - and should not - exist. All that matters to them is that their version of the truth is the one that makes the headlines.
News flash: free speech isn't an a la carte menu through which you can pick and choose what should and shouldn't be allowed.
Read and watch what you like, sure, but the Trump movement's fetish with trying to exert power, authority, and control over the free press and other areas of government - principles that are rearing their heads in far-right movements even in Europe - is anything but free.