Raise your hand if you have an old relative that, with no shame, speaks their hostile and extremist views, political ideologies, ideas or policies. Did you raise your hand? I did too. Now imagine they were shot and killed over those views. And while some people were outraged at the death of your relative, there were people celebrating it, stating their indifference or comparing their death to others. How would you feel? Probably very distraught, and you would hope others would have empathy. Unfortunately, selective empathy is real and dangerous, and Charlie Kirk’s death proves that.
Kirk was killed on Sept. 10 at Utah Valley University during one of his events. His death immediately sparked outrage from his supporters and elected representatives who sought to “declare war.” However, there were also critics who celebrated his death, many of whom felt indifferent or even critical of the incident’s extensive publicity. As someone who disliked Kirk, this is where I draw the line. This is where I bring in the importance of the First Amendment, emphasize the significance of shock value and desensitization and assert the cruciality of empathy.
Charlie Kirk was a public speaker, podcaster (of “The Charlie Kirk Show”), founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and debater who strongly advocated for his self-proclaimed conservative values. His purpose through social media, was to promote conservative values in a way that appealed to the younger generations, specifically college students. He founded TPUSA in 2012 to debate students at numerous universities around the country, gaining popularity and media coverage.
At the same time, there was severe controversy around his beliefs regarding abortion, immigration, gender roles, affirmative action, Palestine, taxation, LGBTQ+ speech and numerous other topics. Kirk had strong opinions, a few examples being: “Israel is not starving the Gazans” and “I think it’s worth to have a cost of unfortunately some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” While most of the data is qualitative, it became obvious by observing social media platforms that many young adults, including myself, hated his takes.
I completely agree that Kirk displayed very controversial opinions — prejudiced opinions. However, he had the constitutional right to express his political views, no matter how controversial. This shouldn’t even be a debate: His killer and anyone praising his death are supporting political violence.
I admit, I felt indifferent about his death at first. I thought, “he shouldn’t have died, but I don’t feel any type of way simply because of how he spoke.” But I did some introspection and realized that even if I am not miserable about Charlie Kirk dying specifically, I am not indifferent. I feel frustrated that someone was murdered simply for speaking their mind. So to anyone feeling indifferent, ask yourself, “Am I turning a blind eye to political violence by saying ‘yeah, he shouldn’t have died, but oh well — he spread opinions I disagree with?’”
It is easy to politicize Kirk’s death, to believe “I can feel indifferent because he was asking for it.” But I firmly believe it is important to maintain principles. You can feel frustrated, or recognize the importance of free speech without mourning or grieving. This isn’t about being obligated to defend or not defend Kirk’s views. It’s about the right to express controversial views without being murdered for it. Feeling frustrated is about maintaining your morals and recognizing that vigilantism is never an acceptable response to dislikable speech. Indifference does not acknowledge this.
The setting, timing, atmosphere and college students at his event play a role in the extensive publicity. In an ideal world, every individual’s murder would get equal coverage. While it is frustrating that Kirk’s has taken over the internet, it is important to understand how much his prominence contributed to shock value. Rather than staying bitter over publicity that can not be controlled, we should recognize that the way Kirk died added to the event being talked about more than other tragedies — that is reality.
If you were to ask, “Why would anyone be unhappy about the death of someone who was spreading far-right political ideology and very unempathetic, aggressive and conservative political rhetoric?” — you would be asking a valid question.
However, while Kirk’s views were controversial, there were still people out there who wholeheartedly supported his views. This becomes obvious when observing the enthusiastic cheers from audiences during his campus debates and the overwhelmingly positive feedback in the comment sections of his social media platforms. So, I would ask you in return — since you don’t feel unhappy towards his murder — how would you react to the murder of someone you liked or agreed with?
Ultimately, Kirk’s death raises three questions: How does the country react to the politically charged murder of someone with controversial views? How would you react if this happened to your family member? And if we start to kill everyone we disagree with, how long would it take until we’re all dead?
