Analysis: Charlie Kirk's death should not be celebrated

September 11th, 2025 — Charlie Kirk, the right-wing social media influencer and founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated at a Utah college on Wednesday. This senseless act of violence was not only an attack on an individual but on free speech and democracy itself.

Regardless of your political leanings or opinions, this should concern you.

America's Polarization

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, radical viewpoints have not only surfaced but have become entrenched across the political spectrum. On the right, movements such as QAnon spread conspiracy theories about the virus and vaccines, painting public health measures as evidence of a wider scandal. On the left, repeated warnings of an impending fascist takeover have similarly fueled suspicion and fear.

What was once fringe has now become mainstream conversation. Social media algorithms amplify the most extreme voices, making radical claims more visible than reasoned debate. As a result, polarization has intensified: Americans increasingly view political opponents not simply as people with different ideas, but as threats to their core beliefs.

The Involvement of Violence

Polarization, when paired with violence, becomes fatal to democracy. America has a history of political attacks — from Abraham Lincoln’s assassination to the killings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. Each moment left deep scars and marked turning points in the nation’s trajectory.

Although lower profile, Charlie Kirk’s death adds a modern chapter to that pattern. His assassination was not merely an attack on an individual, but on the idea that arguments should be contested with words, not weapons. When violence enters political discourse, public figures begin to weigh their safety against their opinions, and ordinary citizens learn that silence is safer than expression.

Public Reception

Perhaps the most chilling response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination has not been the act itself but the reaction of society. On social media, posts applauding his death circulate alongside graphic videos of his final moments. In a high school class, teenagers high-five and celebrate his death. To his political opponents, Kirk’s polarizing views made him an enemy worth silencing.

This reaction warrants immediate concern. To celebrate political murder is to legitimize violence as a tool of politics. It signals that disagreement no longer stops at debate or protest but can be “resolved” through killing. By normalizing hate, these celebrations reinforce the cycle of political polarization: if one side cheers the death of its opponent, the other side feels justified in vengeance. What begins as a discussion quickly turns into retribution.

Conclusion

Charlie Kirk’s assassination is a tragedy, but the deeper danger lies in how it is processed by society. Social media has turned political death into content: likes, shares, and chatter that normalize violence and reward cruelty. In classrooms, where the next generation of citizens is being shaped, the celebration of a political killing teaches students that violence is an acceptable answer to ideas they dislike.

If these reactions go unchallenged, free speech itself erodes. A society that mocks murder will not long preserve the courage to debate. Schools must emphasize clear, respectful education that demonstrates respect for disagreement, and social media platforms must recognize their role in amplifying political division.

Ultimately, protecting democracy requires more than condemning one act of violence — it requires rejecting the culture and foundational ideals that cheer it on.

Author's Comments

This piece is not written to defend Charlie Kirk’s politics, nor to attack those who disagreed with him. It is written out of concern for what his assassination represents. A democracy cannot survive if violence replaces argument and if young people are taught by their feeds or their peers that political murder is cause for celebration.

The question is not whether you supported Kirk or opposed him. The question is whether you believe ideas should be fought with words or with weapons. If we choose the latter, we forfeit not only free speech but the very foundation of democracy.

I would be happy to discuss this topic further. If you have thoughts, opinions, or questions, feel free to reach out to me on Instagram @josh.emlen or by email josh@studentlawspotlight.org

This piece is classified as Center-Right leaning. It is not partisan or ideologically conservative, and the perspectives expressed are not affiliated with any political party. The purpose of this writing is not to argue the moral standing of any individual.