Tennessee Man Jailed Over Charlie Kirk Post Wins $835,000 Settlement
A Facebook meme, a Tennessee jail cell, a $2 million bond, and an $835,000 settlement have now turned Larry Bushart’s case into one of the sharpest free speech stories in America.
The retired Tennessee law enforcement officer spent 37 days behind bars after posting a meme tied to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, then saw the felony charge dropped before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit.
On May 20, 2026, Perry County and officials agreed to an $835,000 settlement, turning a small-town social media controversy into a national warning about government overreach, online speech, and the constitutional line between an offensive joke and a real threat.
The Facebook Post That Triggered a Criminal Case
Larry Bushart’s legal ordeal began after Charlie Kirk’s September 2025 assassination sparked grief, anger, and political tension across conservative communities, including Perry County, Tennessee. Bushart commented on a Facebook post promoting a candlelight vigil for Kirk by sharing memes that criticized the attention being given to the killing.
The meme that led to his arrest used an image of Donald Trump and the phrase “We have to get over it,” a line tied to Trump’s response after the January 2024 school shooting at Perry High School in Iowa.
The confusion, according to officials, centered on the name “Perry High School.” Residents feared the post could refer to Perry County High School in Tennessee, although Sheriff Nick Weems later said he knew the meme referred to the Iowa shooting. That distinction became central to the lawsuit because Bushart’s attorneys argued that the meme was political commentary, not a threat against a local school.
Larry Bushart Spent 37 Days in Jail
Bushart was arrested in September 2025 after he refused to remove the Facebook posts. Authorities charged him with threatening mass violence at a school, and his bond was set at $2 million, an amount he could not afford. He spent 37 days in jail before prosecutors dropped the felony charge in October, after the case drew national attention.
During that time, Bushart lost his post-retirement job, missed his wedding anniversary, and missed his granddaughter’s birth. Those personal losses later became part of the federal lawsuit he filed against Perry County, Sheriff Nick Weems, and Investigator Jason Morrow, the investigator who helped obtain the arrest warrant.
The $835,000 Settlement and What It Means
The settlement does not erase the 37 days Bushart spent in jail, but it gives the case a clear financial consequence. FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, announced that Bushart would receive $835,000 in exchange for dismissing his complaint. The organization described the case as a First Amendment victory and said the lawsuit challenged both the arrest and the alleged retaliation against Bushart’s protected speech.
The case matters because it did not involve a private employer firing someone for an ugly post. It involved government power, police action, jail, bond, and a felony charge. That is why Bushart’s case stood apart from many other post-Kirk controversies, where people lost jobs or faced professional backlash but did not face criminal prosecution.
The First Amendment Problem at the Center of the Case
The heart of the dispute was simple but explosive. When does a social media post become a true threat, and when does it remain protected political speech? In American constitutional law, offensive, harsh, poorly timed, or tasteless speech can still be protected. The government needs more than public anger or discomfort to turn speech into a criminal case.
The Supreme Court has long treated “true threats” as outside ordinary First Amendment protection, but it has also protected political hyperbole. The Library of Congress explains that the Court has recognized threats of violence as unprotected because they can cause fear, disruption, and possible violence, yet only true threats fall outside normal protection.
That distinction became even sharper after Counterman v. Colorado in 2023. The Supreme Court held that criminal prosecution for true threats requires proof that the speaker had at least a reckless understanding that the words would be perceived as threatening. That means the question cannot stop at whether someone felt alarmed; prosecutors must also address the speaker’s mental state.
