Joel FoxA decade has passed since the horrific Charlie Hebdo massacre and the global protests that followed under the slogan of ‘Je suis Charlie’. Yet we must pick up that indomitable slogan once again: another Charlie has fallen victim to violence for having the temerity to practice our universal right to freedom of expression.
On September 10, 2025, tragedy struck at the heart of America’s public debate. Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, conservative commentator, and tireless advocate for open debate, was fatally shot during a campus event at Utah Valley University. The attack was sudden and shocking, with a single shot fired whilst Kirk was engaged in the very thing he valued most: public debate.
Chaos erupted as he addressed students under a tent tragically labelled ‘Prove Me Wrong’ – a nod to his fundamental belief that ideas should be tested, challenged and defended. Videos captured the horrific moment Kirk collapsed after being struck in the neck by a bullet, as students screamed and rushed for cover. Hours later, Donald Trump confirmed on Truth Social that Kirk, just 31 years old and the father of two young children, had died of his injuries.
His death is far more than the loss of a prominent political figure. It is an attack on the very principle of free speech, the very same principle Kirk spent his career defending and ultimately gave his life to uphold. From the moment he founded Turning Point USA at age just eighteen, Kirk dedicated himself to bringing conservative ideas into spaces where they were consistently marginalised, particularly on American college campuses. He understood that these universities were not only places of learning but the key to the future of the US, where young people form their ideas and beliefs – making his work all the more crucial.
His signature ‘Prove Me Wrong’ events captured this vision perfectly, inviting students and critics alike to confront him directly, to debate him openly and to challenge their own convictions. These events were often messy and controversial, drawing frequent protests and heated exchanges. For Kirk, however, they were proof that democracy is strongest when ideas are allowed to clash in the open rather than being silenced.
Kirk’s reach extended far beyond American campuses. He was invited to debate at the prestigious Oxford and Cambridge Unions, historic bastions of free speech in this country. There, he defended his views with the same vigour and unflinching dedication he brought to American campuses.
Whether you felt Kirk ‘lost’ or ‘won’ in these debates, the exercise was a fundamentally crucial learning opportunity for the millions it reached both online and in person. The millions of views online particularly testified to the appetite for such debate which has been sorely missing in the polarised political environments across the world, and particularly in the US.
In the US, his influence grew as Turning Point USA became one of the most powerful grassroots organisations on the right. During the 2024 presidential election, Kirk played a key role in connecting with young voters, especially disenfranchised young men, which many attribute as a key factor in Donald Trump’s victory. He demonstrated that political engagement from the grassroots level through open communication and debate could also shape the course of history.
Even as his political stature grew, Kirk remained committed to this style of dialogue, not just within his own ideological camp but across divides. His podcast became one of the most downloaded political shows in the US, and he used it to host a wide range of voices, from staunch allies to fierce opponents.
In one of his most notable interviews, he sat down with California Governor Gavin Newsom, a progressive Democrat and frequent political adversary. Their spirited debate reflected Kirk’s belief that engagement with opposing views was not just necessary but vital for a healthy democracy. In the wake of Kirk’s murder, Newsom’s condemnation of the attack as ‘disgusting, vile, and reprehensible’ was a testament to their mutual respect despite their profound disagreement – a model for modern civility in the context of significant challenges to free speech.
The symbolism of Kirk’s murder cannot be overstated. He died in the very act that defined his life: debating ideas in public, facing criticism head-on, standing on a stage and insisting that persuasion, not violence, is how societies resolve their deepest conflicts.
His warnings about polarisation, censorship and the fragility of free speech now seem painfully prophetic. Political violence is not just an attack on one individual; it is an attack on the very notion that words are enough. It sends the chilling message that ideas can be answered not with arguments, but with bullets, and that certain voices are too dangerous to be heard. Kirk’s life and death stand in stark opposition to that belief.
Therefore, universities and institutions across the US, and the world for that matter, must not take this disgusting violence as an invitation to give into violence and shut down debate on campus under the guise of ‘student safety’, they must rather double down on Kirk’s message and encourage the proliferation of open dialogue – anything short of this would be a disservice to Kirk’s legacy.
The urgency of this task became painfully clear in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, which sparked an outpouring of grief and condemnation from across the political spectrum. Donald Trump hailed Kirk as ‘Great, and even Legendary.’ As aforementioned, Gavin Newsom, despite their ideological differences, denounced this act of political violence calling for unity. Lawmakers from both parties in the US expressed outrage and sorrow, emphasising that political violence has no place in a free society.
This rare moment of political consensus must not be squandered. America stands at a crossroads: Kirk’s death can either deepen the divides he spent his life trying to bridge through open dialogue, or it can become a turning point where leaders and citizens alike recommit to the hard, uncomfortable but rewarding work of dialogue. If there is to be any meaning in this senseless tragedy, it must be found in rejecting the forces that thrive on division and fear.
To honour Charlie Kirk is to honour the principle that his style of work embodied: not the content of his sometimes-questionable beliefs, but that every idea deserves to be heard, that every disagreement can be confronted with words rather than weapons and that free speech is the foundation of a truly free people. His death is a warning, but it is also an opportunity to build a future where no one must fear for their life simply for having the courage to speak.
Edited by Charlie Windle. Cover Image by Gage Skidmore – https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/54670961811/, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=172612805.
Discover more from Per Capita Media
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.