Posted on 09/15/2025 6:24:17 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
When Charlie Kirk was murdered on September 10, 2025, reactions across the internet followed a now-familiar pattern. Supporters expressed shock and sadness, while detractors — especially many on the progressive left — took to social media with mockery, celebration, and even open joy. For years, this kind of reaction toward controversial figures has played out online without serious consequence. In some circles, it was even encouraged.
But this time, something changed.
This time, the internet didn’t shrug. The public didn't just move on. People lost jobs. Employers issued statements. Some of those who celebrated Kirk’s death — laughing, posting memes, or expressing wishes for more deaths like his — were publicly identified and fired from their positions. And this, it seems, came as a shock to many of them.
Why?
Why were so many surprised that celebrating a man's murder would provoke backlash? Why did they think this time would be like all the others — with no consequences? The answer, I believe, reveals something deeper about how we’ve come to treat political hatred, social media, and our expectations around "acceptable" speech.
For years, political discourse — particularly online — has grown increasingly vicious. Public figures, especially conservative ones, have been fair game for mockery, distortion, and dehumanization. In that environment, celebrating the death of a figure like Charlie Kirk wasn’t just tolerated; for some, it was practically a ritual.
Many people have grown desensitized. After all, extreme statements are common — and often consequence-free — on social media. Insults, threats, celebrations of misfortune... they fill timelines daily. And for those making such comments, there's often an assumption of safety: if you're attacking someone already unpopular in your own circle, your side will shield you.
So, when Kirk was murdered, many expected the same rules to apply. Say what you want, pile on the hate, and wait for the next story to distract everyone.
But this time, the script flipped.
What happened instead was public backlash. Not just from Kirk’s supporters, but from average people — some of whom may have disagreed with him politically — who recognized that something had gone too far. That laughing at a man’s murder isn’t just in poor taste — it’s inhumane.
Why the shift? A few reasons stand out:
Those who mocked Kirk’s death weren’t just expressing political opinions — they were displaying something darker. And in doing so, they overplayed their hand.
They forgot that speech may be free, but it's not free of consequence.
They forgot that celebrating a killing says more about the speaker than the victim.
They forgot that while ideology may divide us, decency is supposed to bind us.
This moment — as unexpected as it was — may signal a cultural turning point. Perhaps people are tired of the endless outrage, the gleeful cruelty, the “owning” of the other side. Perhaps there’s still a moral line that, when crossed, brings real consequences.
Or maybe it’s just a pause — a moment of discomfort before the internet moves on.
Time will tell. But for now, the reaction to Charlie Kirk’s death — and more importantly, to those who mocked it — stands as a reminder: cruelty isn’t courage, and sometimes the crowd does push back.
I hope a new direction.
This time, it was a likeable man with ties on both sides. A man who was trying to bridge the gaps with real discussion. It sadly, is probably why he was assassinated — he was too good at it.
I’d say you’re probably right about that. They can’t fathom anyone having a different opinion.
There is a stark difference with the death’s the left celebrated before like Reagan, or Thatcher, they died of natural causes. Charlie Kirk was assassinated, and celebrating it is condoning assassination, it is a line that in civil society should not be crossed.
It is also a serious concern with increasing frequency of these politically violent incidences from the multiple attempts on Trump to the Minnesota lawmakers just 3 months ago to Kirk.
My friends (not close) and family (close) celebrated when Reagan and Limbaugh died. Those appalled me, but those were natural deaths. Murder of a very young father is evil. To celebrate that is to celebrate cruelty and barbarity. They have crossed the rubicon (again).
Usually, I think, the leadership of the Left is in charge of the hit - like Butler, PA.
This time, they may not have been. This “stochastic terrorism” and control of it, is new to them.
The chickens of COVID that the Left unleashed have not yet come home to roost. This lunatic was off to college during the lockdowns. What will COVID lockdowns produce in grade schoolers? Kindergarteners?
The Right should also pay more attention. The voting machines aren’t called “Dominion” and the on-line surreptitious communication isn’t called “Discord” for no reason.
Or tolerate any opposing view even when their point isn’t being dismissed. One way street and we’ve been driving the wrong way far too long. Perhaps we finally completed that U-turn.
2 Kingdoms. ⚔️♥️✖️
I’d say the fact this murder was captured on camera following quickly after the release of the video of the murder of Iryna Zarutska multiplied the impact it had on the public. It’s harder to distance oneself when the murder is shown that explicitly. Both of them hit you like a gut punch.
A political assassination of a good man🤬🤬🤬
Who’s surprised? Not I.
Agree with everything you said, but civility went out with the Clintons policy of personal destruction and is never coming back. This is where it’s brought us.
I hope people don’t think this is blasphemy but he is one of the closet men to Jesus in my lifetime. He was basically going out into the masses and preaching. He converted many, many people and inspired them to lead a better life. He was the model of a “good man”.
They killed him thinking it would shut him up but doing so created a martyr. Millions of people who prior to his death never heard of Charlie Kirk now know and have heard his words. They killed a saint and will have to suffer the consequences of their actions...
Those that celebrated this assassination unveiled themselves as psychopaths, without empathy, unable to function in society due to lack of trust this exposes. You can’t TRUST them. If they can do this without compunction, what else will they do?
Something to note: When George Floyd, a convicted criminal and drug addict, was killed, the Left took to the streets, burned buildings, murdered store owners, locked police in their station and set fire to it, and stoked similar actions in a dozen cities across the nation.
When Charlie Kirk is murdered, a decent man who tried to create dialog between Left and Right, and is far more deserving of violent reaction than George Floyd, the Right’s reaction was somber, real, deeply-felt, but NOT violent. And therein is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives acted as any reasonable adult would to such a heinous act. Liberals act like spoiled children who don’t get their way, so they start destroying things.
Methinks there is a message here...
Examples:
High School Cheer Coach Fired for Posting Video Celebrating Assassination
FEMA Official ‘Terminated’ After Saying It Was ‘Tough Not to Laugh’ at Kirk’s Assassination
Bengals QB Joe Burrow’s Charity Fires Board Member Over Hateful Charlie Kirk Comments
Office Depot Fires Worker Who Refused to Print Charlie Kirk Poster
Sony’s Sucker Punch Fires Senior Artist over Kirk Assassination Comments
Matthew Dowd Blames ‘Right Wing Media Mob’ for His MSNBC Firing, Defends His Bizarre Comments
Report: Iowa County Faces $1 Million a Day Fine for Not Lowering Flags to Half-Staff for Charlie Kirk
It wasn't just the death of a person, but the death of maybe the single most important principle in a republic - that we are all free to speak, and that we decide disagreements by debate and voting. And sure, that principle has been under assault for awhile, but this was different because Charlie Kirk basically embodied that principle. He just...spoke. Not a politician, but just someone engaging in public debate against opponents. And there are large numbers of people out there celebrating his assassination.
I tried to think if some lefty who wasn't a politician but just a talker, like Cenk Uygur or someone like that, was assassinated, and I'd be horrified for the same reason.
A few on the left get it. Bernie Sanders made a very good statement about Charlie in particular - but he was pointedly not joined by AOC. The vast majority of other Democrats have made vague, generalized "violence isn't the answer" speeches, but have shied away from taking about Charlie Kirk specifically so as not to antagonize their base.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk, and the reaction to it, is like the tolling of the bell for the Republic. We are about to become something else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.