Thoughts on Charlie Kirk and the Aftermath of His Death

The country is still reeling from the murder of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk—a figure labeled by many as a Christian nationalist, evangelical hardliner, and white supremacist. Regardless of the label, one thing is certain: Kirk was a deeply divisive figure.

I’ve seen this even in my own community. I help moderate a local Facebook group where we focus strictly on city and county news, upcoming events, and community information. We enforce rules—no buying/selling posts, no off-topic chatter, and most importantly, no “taboo topics” like religion or national politics. That includes discussion of Kirk.

Some people push back, accusing us of hypocrisy, but the rule is simple: divisive topics tear communities apart. And by definition, Charlie Kirk was divisive. That isn’t my opinion—it’s a fact. His own words, recorded in countless videos and podcasts, make it clear: he openly denigrated LGBTQ people, immigrants, people of color, and anyone who didn’t fit his narrow definition of what an “acceptable” American should be.

Ironically, many only learned Kirk’s name after his death. Others knew him only as the “youth outreach” conservative who hosted debates on college campuses. But those who saw him as merely an open-minded debater were overlooking the reality: behind the stage lights and the Turning Point USA banners, Kirk regularly trafficked in bigotry. He once claimed gay people should be stoned, dismissed empathy as a “made-up word,” and consistently framed non-white, non-Christian Americans as “others.”

Since his murder, there’s also been confusion over the First Amendment. Some employees posting about Kirk online have been suspended or fired, prompting cries of “free speech!” But here’s the truth: the First Amendment protects you from government punishment for speech. It does not protect you from consequences at work or in private life. In at-will states like Georgia, an employer can terminate you for nearly any reason, and inflammatory social media posts certainly fall into that category.

Kirk himself often argued that some level of gun violence was an acceptable price to pay for protecting the Second Amendment. The tragic irony is that he was killed by someone exercising that very right. That’s not a smear—it’s a fact. And if facts make people uncomfortable, that discomfort doesn’t make them less true.

To be clear: I don’t condone his murder. Violence in response to speech is wrong. But I also recognize that when someone spends years fueling division and hate, they create an environment where retaliation becomes more likely. That doesn’t justify it—but it does explain it.

Despite his reputation, Kirk is now being honored in ways that stretch credibility. Trump and J.D. Vance ensured his casket was carried aboard Air Force Two for funeral services, and there’s even talk of awarding him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. If someone like Kirk—who spread hate and division—receives the nation’s highest civilian honor, then the award becomes meaningless.

Charlie Kirk was not a hero. He wasn’t a statesman. He wasn’t a positive influence on American culture, politics, or youth. He was an influential megaphone for a narrow, exclusionary ideology—one that sought to remake America into a country for white Christians only. The evidence of that is overwhelming, found in his own words and actions.

So no, he should not be remembered as a symbol of freedom or inspiration. He should be remembered for what he truly was: a man with a platform, a loud voice, and a message rooted in division.