In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a significant wave of outrage has swept through the right-wing community, with prominent influencers and at least one official from the Trump administration urging supporters to comb the internet for any remarks that celebrate the killing. This initiative, aimed at exposing those who voiced such sentiments, has resulted in a swift and extensive campaign of public shaming, leading to numerous job losses, professional suspensions, and ongoing internal investigations. The incident has intensified the already volatile online discourse surrounding the shooting.
The assassination of Mr. Kirk, a highly influential activist closely aligned with former President Trump, triggered an immediate outpouring of grief and anger from the right. This emotional response quickly morphed into calls for vengeance, as various online personalities rallied their followers to take action against perceived enemies on the left. Notable figures in this movement include far-right agitators such as Laura Loomer and Chaya Raichik, who operates the popular account Libs of TikTok on X (formerly Twitter).
Since the incident, these influencers, along with many others, have encouraged ordinary Americans to report individuals who make disparaging or negative comments about Mr. Kirk. Although many of these comments may be protected under the First Amendment, the repercussions in the real world have been severe. For instance, a Secret Service employee was placed on administrative leave after expressing on Facebook that Mr. Kirk had propagated hate and racism through his platform, according to agency spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi.
Leaders from the Education Departments in Florida and Oklahoma have issued stern warnings to teachers, threatening investigations and potential penalties for those who make any positive remarks regarding the assassination. Reports indicate that educators in Texas and Iowa have already faced termination or administrative leave as a result of their statements about Mr. Kirk.
In a particularly notable case, Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist from the University of Pennsylvania, reposted a message labeling Mr. Kirk as the “head of Trump’s Hitler Youth.” This prompted a vehement backlash from state Republican senator Dave McCormick, who condemned the comments as “despicable” and called for immediate action from the university. In response, Mann clarified that his criticism was aimed at those who lionized Kirk, rather than Kirk himself, and he later deleted the post.
Republican Colorado state lawmaker Rose Pugliese has demanded that Governor Jared Polis fire a state employee who accused Mr. Kirk of being a “white man who spews horrid” language against marginalized communities. Additionally, Louisiana Representative Clay Higgins announced plans to utilize “Congressional authority” to compel tech companies to permanently ban any individual who belittled Kirk’s assassination. John C. Phelan, the secretary of the Navy, emphasized that military personnel displaying contempt towards Kirk would face swift repercussions.
Tim Weninger, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, characterized the ongoing targeting campaign as a significant shift in online rhetoric. He suggested that this movement represents a backlash against the rising tide of violent discourse that has permeated social media in recent years. Weninger noted, “If you lose your job because of comments you made celebrating the killing, that’s a consequence of your speech.”
The effort to expose individuals who have disparaged Mr. Kirk has not only gained traction among larger social media accounts but has also seen enthusiastic participation from numerous smaller ones. One such website, registered just hours after the assassination, has become a central hub for this campaign. The site features a tip line for submissions and lists names of those who commented negatively about Kirk, complete with personal details like email addresses and places of employment.
As of Friday afternoon, the site had named 41 individuals and claimed to have received nearly 20,000 submissions. Its anonymous creator described the site as a lawful aggregator of publicly available information intended for public education, though critics have raised concerns about its implications.
On Thursday, Christopher Landau, the deputy secretary of state, urged his followers on X to report foreigners who glorified violence in connection to Kirk’s assassination. He expressed disgust at the praise some on social media had for the event and directed consular officials to take appropriate action. However, it remains unclear whether any actions have been taken based on the tips received.
Similar tactics have been employed by left-wing activists in the past to highlight overtly racist or anti-LGBTQ+ remarks, aimed at bringing public scrutiny to offenders. Right-wing activists have vehemently opposed these efforts, labeling them as instances of “cancel culture.” Meanwhile, teams of “Sedition Hunters” played a vital role in identifying participants in the January 6 Capitol riots, targeting individuals engaged in criminal activities rather than constitutionally protected speech.
The current right-wing campaign following Charlie Kirk’s assassination raises critical questions about free speech, public accountability, and the potential consequences of online discourse. As tensions continue to escalate, the implications of this movement resonate across various sectors, including education, government, and social media, highlighting the increasingly polarized landscape of American political dialogue.
