I hear your point, Harmony, and I agree that murder is unequivocally wrong. But your second statement raises a troubling question: how is saying you're glad Charlie Kirk's voice was silenced by murder not a justification of that act? It risks implying that silencing speech you find harmful is a tolerable outcome, even if achieved through violence.
Free speech, even when it offends, is a cornerstone of open discourse. Charlie Kirk’s views—on immigration, life, gender, or the Second Amendment—may have been divisive, but they were his right to express.
Celebrating their end through murder crosses a moral line. It’s not about agreeing with him; it’s about recognizing that no one’s beliefs, no matter how much we disagree, justify their slaughter.The reaction on this thread, with memes and lists of Kirk’s “hateful” views, feels like an attempt to rationalize a tragedy. True decency, as we’ve seen from public figures across the spectrum, is mourning a life lost without qualifiers. If we start deciding whose speech deserves to be silenced by violence, we erode the very principles that allow us to debate and disagree freely. Hate isn’t defeated by murder—it’s amplified. Can we agree that silencing voices through violence, no matter their message, is a path we must reject?