A retired Tennessee police officer who spent more than a month in jail over a Facebook post about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has won an $835,000 settlement after suing county officials, CBS News correspondent Shanelle Kaul reported.
Kaul said Larry Bushart, 61, was arrested in September after posting controversial memes on Facebook following Kirk’s killing and refusing to take them down. While many people across the country faced social or professional consequences for comments made after Kirk’s death, Kaul reported that Bushart’s case stood out because his online speech led to felony charges and 37 days behind bars.
“This case was different and rare,” Kaul said, explaining that Bushart lost his post-retirement job during the time he was jailed, missed his wedding anniversary, and missed the birth of a grandchild.
After his release in October, Bushart filed a federal lawsuit in December against Perry County, its sheriff, and the investigator who obtained the arrest warrant. The $835,000 settlement now brings the civil case to a close, while also raising a larger question about how far local officials can go when offensive or misunderstood speech causes public alarm.
A Facebook Post Became A Criminal Case
Kaul reported that Bushart was arrested after posting memes that joked about Kirk’s killing, which had prompted grief and anger among conservatives, including in Perry County near Bushart’s home.
The post that drew the most concern featured an image of President Donald Trump with the quote, “We have to get over it,” along with text explaining that Trump had made the statement “one day after” a shooting at Perry High School.
Bushart added the caption, “This seems relevant today…”
According to the report, the reference was to Perry High School in Iowa, where a January 2025 shooting left two people dead and six others injured. Some people, however, misread the meme as a threat against Perry County High School in Linden, Tennessee.
That confusion became the basis for a much larger law enforcement response, even though Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems later said he knew the meme referred to the school shooting in Iowa, not a local Tennessee school.
Weems told news outlets that most of Bushart’s “hate memes” were lawful free speech, but said residents were alarmed by the school shooting post and feared Bushart was threatening the local school.
“Investigators believe Bushart was fully aware of the fear his post would cause and intentionally sought to create hysteria within the community,” Weems said in a statement reported by The Tennessean.
Thirty-Seven Days Behind Bars
Bushart was taken into custody in September and remained jailed for 37 days, Kaul reported. His bail was set at $2 million before he was eventually released after the case drew national attention.
That length of time is a central part of why the story has drawn attention beyond Tennessee. Online posts can be ugly, careless, cruel, or politically inflammatory, especially after a public killing, but the government’s decision to jail someone over speech carries a different weight.
Kaul said Bushart’s lawsuit described the costs of those 37 days in very personal terms. He lost his post-retirement job, missed his wedding anniversary, and missed the birth of his granddaughter.
Those details make the case feel less like an abstract First Amendment debate and more like a reminder that criminal charges can reorder a person’s life before a court ever decides whether the case should have been brought.
The felony charge against Bushart was later dropped in October, according to Kaul’s report, and Bushart then sued Perry County, the sheriff, and the investigator involved in the warrant.
Bushart Says His Rights Were Vindicated
After the settlement was announced, Bushart said he was pleased with the outcome and ready to move forward.
“I am pleased my First Amendment rights have been vindicated,” Bushart said in a statement quoted in Kaul’s report. “The people’s freedom to participate in civil discourse is crucial to a healthy democracy. I am looking forward to moving on and spending time with my family.”
That statement captures the central argument behind his lawsuit. Bushart was not claiming the posts were polite or popular. He was arguing that offensive political commentary, even commentary many people find distasteful, is still protected unless it crosses a real legal line.
That distinction is important because free speech cases often arise from speech that is unpleasant, not speech that most people already agree with. The hard cases are the ones that arrive in tense moments, when emotions are high and local officials feel pressure to respond quickly.
Cary Davis, an attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which helped represent Bushart, said the case should serve as a warning to law enforcement.
“It’s in times of turmoil and heightened tensions that our national commitment to free speech is tested the most,” Davis said. “When government officials fail that test, the Constitution exists to hold them accountable.”
Davis added that the hope is that Bushart’s settlement sends a message to law enforcement around the country: “Respect the First Amendment today, or be prepared to pay the price tomorrow.”
A Rare Example Of Online Speech Becoming Prosecution
Kaul noted that Bushart’s case was unusual because, while many people lost jobs or faced backlash over comments about Kirk’s death, few faced criminal prosecution.
That difference matters. A private employer firing someone over a post is not the same thing as the government arresting someone, setting a high bond, and holding that person in jail.
The government has more power, so the legal limits are stricter. When public officials respond to speech with criminal charges, they must be able to show more than public outrage, bad taste, or political offense.
In Bushart’s case, the settlement suggests officials faced serious legal risk over how they handled the post, even if some residents were genuinely alarmed at the time.
There is also a practical lesson here for the public. Social media strips away context, and political memes often rely on quick reactions, sarcasm, and outrage. A post meant to make one point can be read another way, especially when it references a school shooting, a public assassination, or another violent event.
Still, misunderstanding a post is not automatically the same as proving a criminal threat.
The Larger Free Speech Question
The Bushart case lands in a difficult place because the underlying speech involved jokes about the killing of Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist whose death sparked grief and anger from supporters.
Kaul reported that Bushart’s posts were controversial and that he refused to take them down. Many people may see that as cruel or needlessly provocative, especially in the immediate aftermath of a killing.
But the First Amendment was not written only for careful, gentle, or agreeable speech. It protects political expression, sharp criticism, and offensive commentary unless it falls into narrow categories such as true threats or incitement.
That is why the settlement is significant. It does not mean every post is wise, decent, or harmless. It means the government cannot simply turn public anger into a criminal case without meeting constitutional standards.
This is where the story becomes interesting beyond one Tennessee county. In a political culture where outrage spreads quickly, officials may feel pressure to “do something” when a post goes viral or causes fear. But acting too quickly can create a worse problem if the response violates the Constitution.
The $835,000 price tag is not only a payout to Bushart. It is also a public cost tied to a government decision that, according to his lawsuit, should not have happened.
Moving On After The Settlement
Kaul reported that Bushart is now expected to receive $835,000 to settle the lawsuit, closing a case that began with a Facebook post and escalated into a month-long jail stay.
For Bushart, the settlement brings vindication and money, but it does not erase what he said he lost during those 37 days: his job, family milestones, and time he cannot get back.
For Perry County officials, the case leaves a costly reminder that public alarm, even when sincere, does not erase constitutional limits.
And for everyone watching from outside Tennessee, the case shows how fragile free speech can become in moments of shock, grief, and anger. The line between offensive speech and criminal conduct must be handled carefully, because when officials get it wrong, the consequences can reach far beyond a single post.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.
