 "Candles and flowers are placed near an image of Charlie Kirk, during a vigil at Orem City Center Park, after US right-wing activist and commentator, Charlie Kirk, an ally of US President Donald Trump, was fatally shot during an event at Utah Valley University on September 10, in Orem, Utah, US. File Photo/Reuters")
In the aftermath of the deplorable killing of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, founder of Turning Point USA, in a burst of gunfire at a Utah university, America has been forced once again to confront its deepest contradictions. His death was violent, sudden, and tragic. But almost instantly, it became a political symbol, seized upon by both admirers and adversaries, each eager to claim it as proof of their cause.
Kirk was never a neutral figure in America’s culture wars. In 2021, while speaking on race, he dismissed George Floyd as “a scumbag … unworthy of the attention”, accusing the outcry over his death of being amplified by “corrupt and disingenuous voices”. In the wake of the Nashville mass shooting, which left three children and three adults dead at a school, Charlie Kirk made remarks that sparked major controversy. He claimed that while gun deaths are tragic, they are “worth it” to preserve the Second Amendment. He further defended the idea, saying, “Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty.”
On guns, his stance was unflinching: “I think it’s worth it. 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 to protect our other God-given rights.” Now, in the grimmest twist of fate, Kirk’s own death has been added to that “cost”; another life consumed by the very epidemic of gun violence and lenient gun laws he defended and protected.
Behind Kirk’s assassination and chilling effect thereafter, however, lies not in the myth-making but in the contradictions it exposes about America itself. The country’s inability to reconcile its absolutist commitment to free speech with its equally absolutist devotion to the Second Amendment.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsWhat happened to free speech?
Perhaps the most telling aftermath of Kirk’s killing has been the censorship of public reaction. Several commentators who described him as “hateful” or refused to mourn him faced bans, takedowns, or investigations. Silencing criticism, however crude or callous, is itself a betrayal of free speech. By policing reactions, the state and private platforms risk equating speech with violence, confusing words with bullets.
The takedown of Jimmy Kimmel Live after Kimmel’s comments on the Kirk episode only adds to the disturbing irony. Following pressure from ABC affiliates and veiled threats from FCC Chair Brendan Carr, the network suspended the show indefinitely after Kimmel questioned the way Maga crowd was weaponising Kirk’s murder. Trump celebrated the move on Truth Social, calling Kimmel “talentless” and demanding similar action against others. Though the show has since been reinstated, the damage is done—another stark reminder of how fragile freedom of speech has become in the US.
Donald Trump, who once signed an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech” to rail against alleged Democratic censorship to “deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech”, is now cheering the silencing of a late-night host.
When Vice President JD Vance took the stage at the Munich Security Conference this February, he criticised European leaders for using “ugly, Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation” to shield entrenched interests from dissenting voices. He railed against the UK’s “renegade” free speech laws and even invoked the case of Adam Smith Connor, jailed for breaching an abortion clinic buffer zone. The irony, of course, is that the very same playbook Vance condemned abroad is alive at home: censoring the freedom of speech.
Vance backed former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi’s call for businesses to fire employees who had made tasteless remarks about Kirk’s death. The comments may be vile, but demanding that people lose their jobs for them is indistinguishable from the cancel culture Vance so theatrically opposes. It shows how “free speech” in today’s politics is less a principle than a cudgel—defended or discarded depending on whose ox is being gored.
A US district judge handed down a telling ruling: that the Trump administration had violated free speech protections when it tried to freeze funding to Harvard. It is a reminder that the First Amendment, the bedrock of America’s political culture, is constantly being stretched, bent, and instrumentalised.
If free speech can be curbed at an Ivy League campus under the guise of fighting antisemitism, and late-night hosts can be silenced for skewering politicians, then censoring public reaction to Charlie Kirk’s death fits into a much larger pattern: the erosion of speech not by direct bans, but by weaponised claims, selective enforcement, political convenience, and abuse of state apparatus.
Gun epidemic is ideology-agnostic
Kirk’s death should serve as a chilling reminder that the bullet is ideology-agnostic. It does not discriminate between left or right, progressive or conservative, theist or atheist, or critic or crusader. For years, mass shootings have shredded the fabric of American life—schools, markets, malls, universities, and even places of worship have all become soft targets. Yet meaningful reform remains elusive.
On August 27, 2025, a mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church & School in Minneapolis left two children dead (ages 8 and 10) and 17 others wounded, including 14 children and three elderly parishioners. This is not an isolated incident. So far in 2025, there have been 308 mass shootings in the US, resulting in ≈ 300 dead and 1,353 wounded across those events. Charlie Kirk’s killing, whatever its motive, is part of this same pattern. The gun crisis in America remains dangerously under-regulated, even as each massacre rekindles the same cycle of outrage, mourning, and stalemate.
A study from the University of Colorado Boulder revealed that one in 15 Americans has witnessed a mass shooting, signifying the severe and widespread impact of gun violence in the US. You are more likely to be killed in a mass shooting in America than a terrorist attack in 2025. Kirk’s death, like so many before him, should jolt America out of complacency. Yet under Trump’s administration, meaningful gun reform remains stalled, drowned out by culture-war rhetoric and performative gestures. Most importantly, the nation must reject the ideology, championed by the Maga groups and its allies, that normalises gun deaths as a “price worth paying” for liberty.
Another Red Scare?
In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing, the American political landscape has been flooded with rhetoric reminiscent of McCarthyism. Scholars and experts have noted striking parallels between the current administration’s tactics and the Red Scare of the 1950s, when Senator Joseph McCarthy and his allies systematically targeted perceived ideological opponents.
In recent weeks, high-ranking officials, including Vance and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, have leveraged Kirk’s death to denounce left-leaning organisations, promising to “identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy” networks they portray as threats to conservative governance. In fact, Miller urged the conservatives to “carry on” Kirk’s legacy.
This confluence of political intimidation, legal manoeuvring, and institutional abuse reflects a deliberate strategy to shape public discourse and punish dissent, echoing the Red Scare’s climate of fear and self-censorship. The mechanisms of state power are being used not only to target ideological opponents but also to signal to the broader public that deviation from sanctioned narratives carries real-world consequences.
For instance, United Airlines announced that it had “taken action on employees” who attempted to justify the killing, while Nasdaq terminated an employee “effective immediately” over “commentary that condones or celebrates violence”.
Taken together, these developments raise a fundamental question: where is America headed? If the state can marshal its authority to target individuals for what they say or post online, whether critical of political figures or merely expressing controversial opinions, then the boundary between lawful dissent and criminal action becomes dangerously blurred.
The chilling effect is immediate, as students, journalists, academics, and ordinary citizens begin to self-censor, and the cultural space for open debate and ideological plurality shrinks. Scholars warn that this creates a de facto surveillance-and-punishment apparatus, eroding the very foundations of democracy. America now stands at a crossroads: it can either reaffirm its commitment to liberty, debate, and the rule of law, or drift toward a dystopia in which bullets, both literal and figurative, decide whose voices are heard and whose are silenced.
Shreyash Sharma is a columnist and research scholar. He holds a degree in Economics & International Relations from City University of Hong Kong.Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.