The Tragic Murder of Charlie Kirk

How can we preserve free speech in a culture of political violence?

On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and a leading figure in the National Conservative movement, was tragically assassinated while hosting a public debate at Utah Valley University.

Shortly after the incident, a suspect was arrested and is currently in police custody. As of writing this article, the investigation into the assassin's exact motive is ongoing. However, current evidence suggests that the attack was politically motivated and Kirk was targeted for his views. Investigators disclosed that the phrases “hey fascist! CATCH!” and “O Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Ciao, ciao!” (a reference to an Italian antifascist song popularized after WW2) were engraved on the bullet casings. Police have also revealed that, in text messages to his boyfriend, the suspected shooter confessed that he acted because he “had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out.”

While I will always find it shocking that anyone could justify taking a human life over political differences, that shock is slightly dulled by the fact that this happened on a college campus. For years, colleges have promoted the idea that words can be a form of violence, labeling these “violent” ideas as “hate speech.” What they mean by this is not that direct threats or calls for violence should be illegal (they already are), but that any speech perceived as offensive or hurtful can cause emotional discomfort equivalent to the harm of a physical assault. This belief, however, is fundamentally flawed.

When people start treating ideas the same way they would treat a physical threat or assault, the only logical conclusion is to respond to ideas they disagree with with violence. In these cases, the “words are violence” crowd incorrectly believe that violence is a form of self-defense against ideas they dislike, rather than what it truly is: an unjustified initiation of force against someone they simply disagree with.

Unfortunately, this belief isn't just something that's discussed abstractly in university lectures. According to a 2024 poll by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), up to 80% of Americans believe that words can be violent. These results align with a broader cultural shift toward the growing acceptance and sometimes celebration of political violence.

Following the July 2024 assassination attempt against Donald Trump, social media was flooded with posts celebrating the attack, with many users only expressing disappointment that the shooter had missed. One such example came from Jacqueline Marsaw, the field director for U.S. Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, who wrote on Facebook, “I don't condone violence, but please get you some shooting lessons so you don't miss next time.” In a follow-up post, she added: “That's what your hate speech got you!!” Another example is a viral tweet that received nearly 200,000 likes, where the user bragged about “liking every 'you had one job' and 'how do you miss' tweet.”

After the assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024, we saw a similar response. Left-wing influencer and popular journalist Taylor Lorenz gushed over the assassin in a CNN interview where she said, “You're gonna see women especially that feel like, 'oh my God, here's this man who's a revolutionary, who's famous, who's handsome, who's young, who's smart, he's a person that seems like this morally good man,' which is hard to find.” In addition, dozens of protesters gathered outside the New York Supreme Court building during the suspect's hearing to support the killing.

Recently, many of the responses to the assassination of Charlie Kirk have continued the trend of Americans praising political violence. Popular Twitch streamer Steven Bonnell, who goes by Destiny online, responded to the news of his death by saying on a live stream, “Conservatives should be afraid of getting killed when they go to events.” Additionally, thousands of videos flooded TikTok featuring people laughing, dancing, and singing about the news of the assassination.

None of these victims were violent; they never harmed or threatened anyone, but instead were targeted solely because they expressed controversial ideas. This politically motivated violence is one of the many important things that Charlie Kirk spent his life trying to prevent through his debates.

I have disagreed with Kirk on many issues and do not align with his nationalist views. However, despite our political differences, I have always genuinely respected Kirk for his strong support of free speech. We both recognized (and I still do) that a civilized society relies on individuals being free to express their thoughts without fear of violence, whether from the government or private individuals.

That was Kirk's reason for founding Turning Point USA: to prevent political violence by fostering open conversations. He once said in an interview, “When people stop talking, that's when you get violence, that's when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.”

Charlie Kirk did what a lot of people are afraid to do: he opened up his ideas to criticism. He initiated discussions that many students avoided on college campuses due to a fear of being labeled as “violent.” He introduced thousands of young people to new ideas. While I again have some disagreements with these ideas, he generally showed them that there are alternative ways of thinking beyond what their professors are promoting. He demonstrated that debating those with opposing views won't cause harm. People not only survive having their ideas challenged—they grow from it.

That's why he was killed—not simply for holding his beliefs, but for daring to speak them out loud. The target wasn't just Kirk, but freedom of speech itself. The assassin's goal was to send a message and intimidate others into silence. As the shooter said, “Some hate can't be negotiated out.” People aren't just cheering because they hate his views. They are demanding to replace debate and persuasion with force. It's authoritarian, and it's extremely dangerous.

Honestly, as horrified as I am by the people promoting these kinds of attacks, I feel a little bit sad for them, too. They genuinely believe that they are creating a better world. However, what many of them don't understand is that once they normalize political violence and set the precedent that it's acceptable to murder people they disagree with—and it won't just apply to their political adversaries. Eventually, the bloodshed they long for will come for them too, and they'll have to constantly look over their shoulder, wondering who sees them as an enemy.

In this world they want to build, ideas won't be challenged or evaluated based on truth, logic, or merit, but instead on how much force can be used to coerce agreement. It will become harder and far more dangerous to share knowledge, seek truth, and understand the people and the world around them. Violence doesn't eliminate bad ideas—it only ensures that whoever holds the most power or has the biggest gun is the only one allowed to speak.

I do want to make one thing clear. As much as I have criticized those celebrating Charlie Kirk's assassination, some of the responses from his supporters have been just as disturbing.

While many are just mourning the loss of someone they admired and supported, others are using his murder to call for revenge. Shortly after the assassination, Elon Musk posted on his Twitter account, “If they won’t leave us in peace, then our choice is fight or die.” In a post with over 200,000 likes, influencer Andrew Tate simply wrote the words “Civil war.”

Responding to senseless violence with more senseless violence will not solve anything. In fact, it will escalate the issue.

Freedom of speech was attacked, but it was not destroyed. We still have our voices, and we can convince others that our rights are worth defending.

The only real solution to political violence is building a culture that entirely rejects the initiation of force without exception. No more excuses that “it's okay if my side is violent,” or that “it's worse when the other side promotes violence.” We have to stand on principle. That means defending freedom of speech consistently, and making it clear that no matter how offensive or controversial someone's ideas may be, we do not respond with bullets. Ever.

Anyone who disagrees with that is part of the problem, part of how we got here, and part of why this cycle of meaningless violence will continue. But there is still hope.

While too many Americans have responded with glee or bloodlust, many others (both Democrats and Republicans) have come together to condemn political violence. The “words are violence” crowd may be loud, but the silent majority of Americans who want to preserve peace, protect speech, and keep our society intact are getting louder. Together we can build a future where people spread ideas through reason instead of attempting to spread them via force.

Cover photo by Gage Skidmore