It's about repression, not free speech
The right's response to Charlie Kirk's death gives away the game.
PN is supported by paid subscribers. Become one 👇
Following the horrific assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk last week, many pundits rushed to praise him for his commitment to free speech.
Ezra Klein at the New York Times claimed that by speaking at universities and inviting liberals to debate him, Kirk was “practicing politics the right way.” Sally Jenkins of The Atlantic insisted that Kirk “argued with civility.” At Jacobin, Ben Burgis and Meagan Day wrote that Kirk “didn’t descend into personal attacks.”
Kirk’s legacy, we are to believe, was one of nonviolence and respect for the first amendment. He taught us, supposedly, how to argue fiercely but civilly and in good faith.
But the Charlie Kirk that Klein and Jenkins and company have invented is not, unfortunately, the real Charlie Kirk. As Elizabeth Spiers explains at The Nation, one of Kirk’s main legacies was a “watchlist” of professors who Kirk and his organization, Turning Point USA, considered too liberal; people on the list often were targeted for smears and death threats. TPUSA also bussed people to the January 6 insurrection, and Kirk was a major proponent of “Stop the Steal” conspiracy theories.
Among many other horrific statements, Kirk said that stoning LGBT people to death is part of “God’s perfect law,” and that gun deaths are “worth it” to protect the Second Amendment. He also called for President Joe Biden to be executed.
Kirk devoted his career to squashing dissent and attacking democracy. His allies on the right understand that legacy better than liberals praising him as a free speech icon.
From Donald Trump on down, those on the right have not honored Kirk by calling for civility and peaceful debate. They have rushed to use Kirk’s death as an excuse to silence dissent and to terrorize those they perceive as their enemies. Their success is a frightening sign of how far democratic norms have eroded under this president.
Trump calls for political violence (again)
Kirk was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University last Wednesday. A suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was arrested after turning himself in late Thursday.
Robinson’s family appears to be politically conservative, but some who knew Robinson say he had become disenchanted with Trump and Kirk. Messages written on bullet casings at the scene include ironic video game allusions and memes; chat logs suggest Robinson joked about the assassination afterwards with friends. The only safe thing to say at the moment is that Robinson’s exact motivations and ideology remain uncertain.
MAGA, however, is not waiting for the facts.
Even before Robinson was arrested or identified, the right insisted, with no evidence, that Democrats and the left were responsible for the assassination and called for an escalation of violence.
Trump himself led the way, telling reporters after the shooting that in supposed retribution “we just have to beat the hell” out of “radical left lunatics.”
Others on the right rushed to one up each other in demanding violence against the left despite an utter lack of evidence as to the shooter’s identity or motivation.
Conspiracy theorist and close Trump ally Laura Loomer tweeted, “The best way President Trump can reinforce Charlie's legacy is by cracking down on the Left with the full force of the government.” Trump ally Elon Musk added, “the Left is the party of murder … if they won't leave us in peace, then our choice is fight or die." South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace tweeted (again, with no evidence) that “the left owns what happened” and amplified false claims about the shooter being trans.
Silencing the opposition
These calls for violence were coupled with an ongoing campaign of harassment, intimidation, and censorship against those who have criticized Kirk, or just against people seen as opposed to his ideology and goals.
Former Republican strategist Matthew Dowd was fired as a contributor by MSNBC after he said that Kirk pushed “hate speech” and added that “hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.” Dowd believes he was fired because of a “right-wing media mob.” Similarly, DC Comics cancelled the “Red Hood” comic-book series written by novelist Gretchen Felker-Martin after she said on social media that Kirk was a “Nazi bitch” and wrote “hope the bullet’s OK.”
These were the two highest profile firings, but the right went after numerous other individuals as well. NBC reported on Friday that they had confirmed that at least 12 educators had faced some level of censorship after “conservative online influencers” shared screenshots of responses to Kirk’s death that they deemed inappropriate.
For example, two faculty members at East Tennessee State University have been put on administrative leave for Facebook comments; one of them said, “you reap what you sow” and another said “this isn’t a tragedy. It’s a victory.” The school told NBC that they’d received “numerous complaints” about the posts — which is to say, right-wing networks highlighted them and coordinated a campaign to silence the professors.
Of course, you may believe that some or all of these responses to Kirk’s death were inappropriate or wrong. But it’s hard to argue that they are more inappropriate or wrong than Trump calling for the beating of people on the left, or than Charlie Kirk calling for Biden’s execution or the stoning of LGBT people. You don’t advance free speech and democracy by hyper-policing and censoring those with little power while allowing the literal president and his powerful allies to call for political violence and murder.
But the right is barely pretending that their current campaign is about preventing political violence, or even that it’s about Charlie Kirk. Democratic leaders uniformly condemned the attack on Kirk, but that didn’t stop the right from claiming the left (including Democrats) needed to be punished.
Will Stancil, a prominent progressive social media influencer, pointed out that (as per Trump’s call to target leftists) “many of the ringleaders [on the right] are going after ANY liberal they don't like, not just people who said insensitive things about Charlie Kirk.” Stancil noted that he, personally, has not mocked Kirk or suggested that his death was deserved. Nonetheless, “ringleader accounts published my full address and number, resulting in nonstop threats and harassment all day.” He had to call the police after he received credible death threats.
Not hypocrisy, but fascism
It’s impossible not to notice that MAGA treats political violence very differently depending on who is the target. As just one shocking example, Utah Sen. Mike Lee posted conspiracy theories and jokes after a Trump supporter assassinated Minnesota’s Democratic House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband in June.
In contrast, after Kirk’s death, Lee posted that he was an “American patriot” and insisted that “the terrorists will not win.”
You could see this as hypocrisy. But it’s perhaps more helpful to understand that MAGA, and fascists in general, are fundamentally opposed to the ideas of free speech, equality, and democracy.
Charlie Kirk targeted professors for harassment and participated in an effort to overthrow the Constitution because he believed that his ideological opponents should have no voice in society or government. Mike Lee finds political violence against Democrats to be funny because he thinks those who don’t agree with him are illegitimate and don’t really have the right to speak. And Trump is in the habit of calling for the violent repression of those who oppose him.
These people are not claiming to embrace free speech and then failing to apply that ideal equally. They fairly openly think that some views, and some people, are more equal than others, and that they are entitled to enforce their rule with whatever means they choose, including violence.
Charlie Kirk’s death has given Trump and those who serve, worship, and use him another opportunity to bully opponents into doing their bidding. The fact that media orgs, educational institutions, and pundits who should know better are rushing to fall in line is chilling and is meant to be chilling. Political violence is ugly, evil, and a threat to democracy; the shooting of Kirk, like the shooting of Melissa Hortmann, harms our republic. So does the right’s successful effort to use Kirk’s death to silence dissent and terrorize dissenters.
That’s it for today
We’ll be back with a special Saturday edition tomorrow. If you appreciate today’s PN, please do your part to keep us free by signing up for a paid subscription.
Thanks for reading, and for your support.
If Trump were honest (obviously, he's not) he would blame himself for the political violence we're encountering. If Trump were any kind of leader any American should want, he would think about how to lead by setting a good example instead of continuing to subject America to Trump's Bad President reality TV show.
Trump was the candidate who boasted that his supporters would continue to support him even if he murdered someone on 5th Avenue. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters/
Only a week before Kirk's political murder, Trump and Hegseth publicly admitted--they publicly boasted--that they murdered 11 people on a boat off the coast of Venezuela. Those killings were at least as blatantly political as Kirk's killing. And Trump boasted that he would kill again if given the chance. To this day Trump and Hegseth still haven't informed us of the identity or citizenship of any person on that boat or of any fact tending to establish any reason any person was on that boat.
As a fairly famous SCOTUS decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), quoting the wise and great Justice Brandeis (joined by the wise and great Justice Holmes) dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)) put it:
"Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
I have to agree with the comment that “you reap what you sow," and I'd like to see someone explain how Charlie Kirk got anything other than what he advocated.
Charlie Kirk got exactly what he said America deserves. There's no reason to think Kirk's killing was more tragic than Kirk thought of other deaths due to gun violence. Kirk's own words are most relevant to whether Kirk's killing was tragic or just a sort of poetic justice:
"I think it’s worth it to have [ ] gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
– Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs
To use Kirk's own words, Kirk was one of the "gun deaths every single year" that Kirk actually advocated "to protect our other God-given rights," and that's exactly what he got. Kirk, himself, supported what happened to him. As Kirk said, "I think it’s worth it." "That is a prudent deal. It is rational."