Debating Matters More Than Ever: The Murder of Charlie Kirk

If a Christian conservative can be shot for expressing Christian conservative views, tomorrow a socialist can be killed for espousing Marx, and a liberal can be killed for opposing both murders.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk during a Turning Point event at a Utah university has rocked the political world. The conservative pundit built a career touring university campuses, engaging in and encouraging open debate on a range of political topics. In increasingly divided times, his murder is a painful reminder of the importance of free speech.

Political assassination is as old as politics itself

Political assassination is as old as politics itself, but in our supposedly liberal and democratic era, it has yet to be eradicated. In 2016, Labour MP Jo Cox was shot and stabbed to death by a far-right extremist; in 2021, Tory MP David Amess was murdered by an Islamist; in 2022, Salman Rushdie was attacked on stage, leaving him blind in one eye. Earlier this year, Melissa and Mark Hortman were murdered in a politically motivated killing spree targeting prominent Minnesota Democrats.

The addition of the 31-year-old Kirk to the list of high-profile political assassinations in recent memory is emblematic of the insidious effects of an increasingly polarised political realm. Whether a conservative under a Republican president, a socialist under a Tory government, or a fiction writer in a theatre, when violence is legitimised as a political tool, no one is safe.

Most reacted to Kirk’s shooting with shock and condemnation. However, a loud minority on both the left and right have leapt at the opportunity to call for further political violence. Some on the left have been celebrating the killing of a husband and father, holding his views to be too ‘extreme’ for public discussion. On the other side are those to Kirk’s right, so-called ‘Groypers’ who follow Nick Fuentes, and other strange figures of the alt-right. Fuentes himself was fast to denounce the killing and political violence more broadly, yet on platforms such as X calls for reprisals and the end of the “nice guy” approach to politics were widespread. In their view, the killing of Kirk (to them a moderate) is symbolic of the end of liberalism and should act not as a solitary act of senseless violence, but as the impetus for the right to embrace physical force against their opponents. The shooting itself was a deeply unsettling incident, yet the reactions of joyful bloodlust and militant rage act as a disturbing warning for the direction of political discourse.

Kirk built a career and multi-million dollar media empire on the principle of open debate, travelling around the United States encouraging his opponents to engage in civil discussion and disagreement. He extolled the importance of civil discourse, maintained an admirable level of respect and calmness in his interactions and introduced millions of young people to politics, conservatism, and the art of debate itself. Many of Kirk’s opponents took advantage of his willingness to stand up for his beliefs by going to his shows to question, challenge, and debate him. These people also understood the value of political discussion and maintained a level of respect for opposing views.

We are in increasingly illiberal times

This murder is a tragedy on a human level, but given Kirk’s prominence in political spheres, there are dark political lessons to be learned. Liberals have spent centuries defending everyone’s right to free speech and promoting the adoption of debate to settle disagreements and avoid violence. Yet in increasingly illiberal times, as the right drifts into populism, national conservatism, and fascism, and as the left veers into increasingly militant socialism, the desire for free and open discourse is dwindling. Many of Kirk’s opponents took to social media following the assassination to post comments he had made that they disagreed with, not to dismantle his claims as much as to imply that his murder was deserved. The message of the assassination of Kirk, or the similar attack on Rushdie, is that no matter your willingness to hear ‘the other side’, outspoken people are at risk of serious injury and death.

In the aftermath of the assassination, many have been quick to blame whoever they don’t like: the mainstream media, the left, Donald Trump or a host of other scapegoats. Even Trump’s administration, which enjoyed the full support of Kirk and TPUSA, responded by blaming ‘the radical left’ and directing state efforts against ‘political enemies’. The President reportedly instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute his political opponents in the aftermath of the shooting, particularly those who sought impeachment in his first term. More visible is the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel. Beyond mere online criticism, ABC removed Kimmel from his late-night slot following FCC pressure. This was followed by POTUS’ suggestion that those negatively covering his government could have their broadcasting licenses revoked in an affront to the freedom of speech defended by Kirk, and the 1st Amendment. To blame one’s opponents in the aftermath of such a shocking event continues the dangerous precedent of deepening division, convenient as it may be to say ‘J’accuse’ and score political points.

The blame lies with all of us

The reality is that the blame lies with all of us. Research from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) found that a third of students in the US believed violence was an acceptable means of censoring unpopular speakers. One need not look far to find a controversial speaker being hounded off a university campus by protesters who spit at, punch or throw milkshakes over them. When we shame those with opinions we dislike, when we deplatform controversial people, we propagate a culture that is at best indifferent, and at worst hostile to freedom of speech. Even the liberals, libertarians and others across the spectrum who defend this essential democratic right are guilty of not doing enough.

It is easy to turn a blind eye when the censorious mob comes after someone controversial. Standing up for something as simple as free speech can carry accusations of ‘fascist’ and ‘racist’, and lead to targeted harassment - the legitimate fear of which is reason enough to not speak out. After all, why should I, a liberal, come to the defence of someone like Charlie Kirk, a Christian nationalist who has voiced support for tariffs and mass deportations? The events of September 10th answer that question.

If today a Christian conservative can be shot for expressing a Christian conservative view, tomorrow a socialist can be killed for espousing the values of Marx, and a liberal can be killed for opposing both murders.

I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it - Voltaire

The famous quote often attributed to Voltaire is one familiar to all defenders of free expression, and one that Charlie Kirk lived - devoting his time to hearing opinions he found objectionable, even evil - and ultimately dying in this pursuit. The acceptance of political violence against one is the acceptance of violence against all, and if we are to fight for a free future, we must do battle with the unfreedom of today.

We like to believe that society has advanced enough to allow basic freedoms such as that of speech and free expression. J.S. Mill argued in ‘On Liberty’ that free expression was necessary to counter the tyranny of the majority, that the protection of opposition was fundamental to democracy.

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. - J.S. Mill

Despite this being written in 1859 and now considered self-evident by most democratic thinkers, the truth is much uglier. Political groups seek power not just to legislate for the betterment of society, but to legislate the removal of all future opposition. In a recent Jubilee debate with Mehdi Hasan, a self-proclaimed fascist, named debate and democracy as a “means to support an end,” the end of absolute power. When challenged by Hasan about his own fate under an autocracy, the man claimed that he would “not be part of the group that [an autocrat] kills.”

Debate cannot just be entertainment

Many treat debate as entertainment. It’s a YouTube video you watch whilst making dinner, or something you join in after school in the hopes of improving your university application - it is often taken for granted. The UK, no bastion of free speech, is significantly freer than Iran or Russia. The US enjoys the privilege of the 1st Amendment, first in its placement in the Bill of Rights and its importance to the American republic. If the opinionated can be killed in these free and liberal nations, the freedom of us all is lost. Those ignorant of or indifferent towards free speech’s importance, whilst not openly opposed, are failing in their duty to combat ideologies of oppression which are gaining ground in the ailing marketplace of ideas.

Debate is often not enough to change someone’s mind; it’s not a rigorous academic pursuit of truth, and it certainly doesn’t determine who’s ‘right’. Yet it is clear that debate is more than a hobby or an after-school activity; debate is a profound exercise of our liberty and an essential part of democratic participation.

Josh Cheshire is the former National Coordinator of Students for Liberty UK, and a graduate of History and Politics from the University of Edinburgh. He is interested in liberal philosophy and its applications in politics and society.