https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/09/11/the-murder-of-charlie-kirk-cancel-culture-turns-lethal/
Charlie Kirk is dead, aged just 31, gunned down at Utah Valley University doing what the conservative firebrand had been doing for more than a decade. Arguing, debating, talking in public. For that, he’s gone.
A manhunt is still underway, to find the scumbag who put a bullet through Kirk’s neck and deprived his wife and two children of their husband and father. We don’t yet know the motive. But it is impossible to ignore the climate in which this senseless killing has taken place.
Kirk was wearing a white t-shirt, with the word ‘Freedom’ emblazoned on it, when he was slain. It’s been the cause of his career. Bounding on to the scene in 2012, a co-founder of student group Turning Point USA, he was a seminal figure in the young-conservative pushback against the blue-haired intolerance of the campus left.
He dropped out of university himself, but cut his debating teeth touring campuses and taking on all-comers. He built an enormous following doing that most shocking of things in America in the 2010s: taking right-of-centre views to college campuses, arguing his case unapologetically, taking no prisoners but also treating those he disagreed with seriously.
Minds have turned to the rising temperature in America. To the bleak rise in political violence. To the bullet that ripped through Donald Trump’s ear last year. To Luigi Mangione shooting Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, in the back with a 3D-printed pistol.
I dare say the college campus is where this rot took hold. When Kirk was coming to prominence, students were rioting at Berkeley because Milo Yiannopoulos had dared to show up, or were manhandling academics at Middlebury for interviewing Charles Murray. Now, campus cancel culture has turned deadly.
Speech is violence. Words wound. These are the toxic fictions that have infected the West’s universities, media and cultural elites. Now we are confronted with the bloody consequences of it. For if speech is violence then surely violence is a legitimate response to speech?