A Few Words On the Cowardly Assassination of Charlie Kirk and the Reaction

Free speech remains the answer.

If you’ve seen the close-up video, you’ll know how disturbing it is. I’m not an emotional bloke, but Christ—the anger that drove up from the pit of my stomach was like that of an F1 car smashing into the barricade.

Here was a man who spoke across a wide range of subjects, to a wide range of people. He said things some would call controversial, but at the heart of it was a single, powerful idea:

We must keep debating. When we lose the ability to speak freely, violence becomes inevitable. Charlie said this almost word for word only a few months ago.

I was lucky enough to share a room with him once at a Turning Point UK event—an offshoot of his US-based organisation—when it launched back in 2017 or 2018.

That dimly lit, oaken room changed the moment he walked in. Videographers twice his age swarmed around him, but all I could hear was his sharp, quick-witted takedowns of Democrat policy.

He was my age. His knowledge, his timing, his prose—unrivalled. It was my first real taste of politics, and he was the guy.

His assassination, carried out in front of his wife and two young daughters, can only be described as one of the most cowardly and brutal murders of this century.

It ought to indeed mark a turning point, particularly for progressives.

Yet, amid the raw fury and grief, something troubling has emerged on the right.

I’m seeing more people begin to equate speech with violence, as if the two are the same. It’s the same argument our political class has used for years. It’s their blueprint for more censorship.

Yes, if speech rises to the level of overt, immediate, and credible incitement to violence, then intervene. That constitutes a real threat. But otherwise, the answer must remain the same: more speech, not less.

Of course, many on the left have made a habit of smearing opponents as “fascists” without evidence. It’s been one of their most effective weapons.

That habit isn’t exclusive to the left, but it is far, far more common. Just look at footage from any of the thousands of protests or debates we’ve seen in recent years.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a serious problem. But calling someone a fascist doesn’t, in itself, cause violence.

People are responsible for their own actions.

If I call a Net Zero activist, who’s publicly called for “climate denial” to be criminalised, a “fascist”, and someone later harms them, I’m not responsible. The person who commits the violence is.

The same goes for ghoulish partisans who baselessly label their opponents “racist” or “Nazi.”, whether we like it or not. If they purvey in overt incitement, that's a different matter.

Criticism—even slander—is not violence.

If anything, we should consider using libel laws more often to disincentivise such lazy and reckless smears. That’s if we can de-politicised our judiciary.

Progressive activists have already successfully done so for certain accusations. Look at the case of Laurence Fox, who was sued for accusing someone of being a paedophile.

Why shouldn’t we apply this to those who slander their opponents as “white supremacists,” “fascists,” or “transphobes”? It’s equally damaging to one’s reputation.

Yes, it will be expensive and timely. But if enough people on our side do it, it would surely make a difference.

In the wider picture, though, we have to trust the public to see the truth, as long as we keep exposing it.

The activists calling free speech advocates “fascists” are often the same people lobbying for more censorship: hate speech laws, misinformation controls, no-platforming, banning books, silencing political figures.

People can feel the deep, distasteful hypocrisy.

But what will these activist get from it? Well, they’ll lose their credibility. They’ll lose their influence. They’ll lose elections.

If we start accepting the idea that smears cause violence, however, we’re only strengthening the very narrative the state is using to expand its power.

We’ve already seen where that leads. Take the Online Safety Act.

The tragic suicide of Molly Russell—weaponised into a “child safety bill”—has now enabled the state to arrest citizens for mere speculation.

It’s “ends justify the means” logic. And it always ends with the subversion of basic human rights.

As for Charlie’s cowardly murderer, we still don’t know the full motive. We might never know.

There have been reports about Antifa or transgender-linked inscriptions on the bullets found by Utah police, but we don’t know enough.

What we do know is this: free speech remains the only antidote to political violence.

We cannot let grief guide us down the same path the establishment has walked for years, equating debate with danger, criticism with crime, and even smears as violence.

That’s how liberty dies—not in the fire, but slowly in the fog.