When Violence is Celebrated, Free Speech Dies
By Ashley Hefner, Photographer and Staff Writer
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said that the United States Constitution protects “not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” His words remind us that the true test of free speech is whether we uphold it for the voices we find most offensive. On September 10, 2025, America was reminded of the danger of neglecting it when conservative activist Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University.
In the days following his death, public reaction was intensely divided. While some offered condolences to Kirk’s family, others solely emphasized his controversial statements and political stances. Professors at Syracuse University mocked what they saw as the irony of his pro-gun views in light of his death by gun violence. Among them was Jenn Jackson, a political science professor, who wrote, “His dying this way seems both ironic and in line with his own politics.” In a viral TikTok video, a user declared, “If you’re one of those dip sh*t people that are like no matter what happens you shouldn’t wish death on someone — sh, I am going to cheer and dance and sing.”
Even when public figures tried to respond with compassion, the backlash was immediate. Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of President John F. Kennedy, posted, “Charlie Kirk was assassinated today. We are all weaker because of it. A tragedy. I am thinking of him and his family.” His attempt at empathy was met with hostility. “Yeah, no, I just double checked and I still dgaf [don’t give a f—] ,” one commenter said. “NOT AT ALL, no one is mourning this vile monster… FINALLY SOME KARMIC JUSTICE,” said another. These are only some of the disturbing responses to Schlossberg’s post.
This is more than troubling — it is evidence of how quickly compassion can vanish when ideology becomes the center of attention.
Charlie Kirk was, without question, a polarizing figure. He often made statements about guns, gender and other controversial matters that were offensive and inflammatory, drawing fierce criticism from many. But, no matter what one thought of his politics, it is deeply unsettling to see people justify or even cheer for his brutal killing.
By dwelling on Kirk’s past words instead of focusing on the cruel act that took his life, we risk minimizing the reality of what happened. A man was shot while engaging in civil debate. His wife is now a widow. His children no longer have a father. That is not “ironic,” nor is it “karma.” It is a tragedy. Plain and simple.
When people who oppose gun violence laugh at or try to rationalize a shooting because the victim supported the Second Amendment, they are contradicting their own values. The principle that no one deserves to be shot should not be selectively applied based on whether we agree with someone’s politics. If we start deciding that some lives are worth less than others, or that someone should be killed because we think their views are problematic, we erode the very idea of equality.
What is at issue here goes beyond Charlie Kirk. The First Amendment is supposed to guarantee that every American has the right to speak, debate and advocate — even in ways others find offensive. Freedom of speech only means something if it protects unpopular voices. If expressing a controversial opinion is treated as a death sentence, then the protection the First Amendment is supposed to grant completely disappears.
Criticism of Charlie Kirk’s ideas is fair and necessary. We should always challenge views that we believe cause harm. But there is a time and a way to do this appropriately. Immediately after his death, in order to mock him, rationalize his killing or say he “deserved it,” is not one of those times or one of those ways. It also does not advance any meaningful dialogue. Instead, it desensitizes us to violence and makes political disagreement feel like a matter of life and death — something to be won or lost through bullets rather than debate.
It should frighten us that some people are comfortable not just rationalizing Kirk’s murder, but also with celebrating it. How is anyone supposed to feel safe expressing themselves and their opinions when society normalizes the idea that unpopular speech warrants lethal punishment? Violence must never be treated as an acceptable response to words, no matter how much we dislike them.
We can and should disagree passionately with ideas we don’t align with. But we must agree on one fundamental truth: no one deserves to die for their opinions. We can only preserve our humanity if we condemn all manifestations of hatred — even when it targets those we vehemently disagree with or struggle to respect.
Photo Caption: Charli Kirk at Ohio State University
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore, Flickr