Let's get something straight about Charlie Kirk's legacy: He was NOT a champion of free speech.

The media on both sides is lazily repeating this and/or spreading the propaganda so that Kirk's assassination can be used as motivation for their political designs.

What Charlie Kirk was (at least in his public life) was a far right, sexist, racist, selfish man who used his so called debates to platform his Christian Nationalist rhetoric and foment outrage and division among those sympathetic to his way of thinking.
In fact he was decidedly NOT an advocate for bipartisan free speech, only the freedom for him and his kinds to say whatever they wanted.
You may recall his Professor Watchlist which was a database of Professors that were saying things he didn't like and so he published their details to his site, the obvious result of which was harassments, death threats and pressure for dismissal.

So let's be clear on that. Kirk was a propogandist who used control of the venue and targeting largely students unskilled in debate to spread his own message and vindictively attempted to silence people who spoke out on issues he didn't agree with.

You can mourn the man if you want, but mourn the man and not the imaginary martyr to free speech 🙄

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ArishMell · 70-79, M

Being neither American nor a resident of America I had never heard of Charles Kirk until his murder, and I would not be surprised if nor had many Americans; but the reporting on the News in Britain did give a short clip from one of his speeches.

I had the impression he thought we are living in 1825, not 2025. I certainly thought his demands, irrespective of political Party, frankly very unpleasant, illiberal (in the true sense) and antisocial.

Nevertheless, obviously his cold-blooded murder was totally wrong. There is absolutely no justification for using killing as a method of expressing political views.

To be fair, so far you have only a suspect arrested in rather odd circumstances, so do not know and must not speculate on the actual murderer, motive or any others' involvement.

Indeed I thought the aftermath, ignoring questions of identity, evidence and burden of proof, and some, even the President, calling for his execution; very strange, nearly as disturbing as the crime itself. I cannot judge the alleged turning-in and confession of guilt, but I thought the USA's system states that the Court Judge determines the sentence in a serious crime case, and only after proof of guilt. Not by advance speculating or demands by the prosecution; certainly not by politicians - of any Party.

I have no television but friends who do, tell me the TV news released videos from the scene, showing conflicting evidence making proper investigation and trial even more important. Killing someone - ostensibly but not in this case yet established either way - merely for political or social views, has no place in a civilised society.

I hope for American's sake that Kirk's likely actual murderer - whoever he may be - is found and tried, and if found guilty is sentenced, all by proper process, and soon.

....

The USA's basic judiciary, based on that of Britain, is unusual even in democracies. Most, even Western European, nations use judges alone or in tribunal instead of juries, place the burden of proof on the defence, and allow advance sentence calls by the prosecutors. So value it, you Americans! Along with its constitutional independence, it is one of your country's greatest assets.