Charlie Kirk advocated for hate speech, not free speech

Charlie Kirk, an American right-wing media personality, was shot and killed while debating gun violence during a visit to Utah Valley University on Sept. 10. 

Internet comment sections are running wild with discourse surrounding the appropriate reaction to his death, as online hate campaigns and high-profile firings call into question the extent of a person’s right to free speech.

Far-right online campaigns are penalizing those speaking out about Kirk’s death — and Canadians aren’t an exception. 

Doxing sites and harassment  

Online, some users are celebrating Kirk’s death while others are challenging his rhetoric and calling for people to mourn others who’ve died the same way, like school shooting victims. 

In response, Kirk supporters have created online doxing sites to identify and punish people “celebrating” his death.  

The name at the very top of one site, which has since been taken down, was Canadian independent journalist Rachel Gilmore. 

In a post on X, Gilmore said she feared far-right extremist Kirk supporters would turn to violence in “retaliation” for Kirk’s killing. In response, she received rape and death threats from Kirk supporters.

When your opinion gets you fired

Some are even being fired or put on leave over comments on Kirk’s death.  

MSNBC dismissed senior political analyst Matthew Dowd for his commentary while covering the Kirk shooting. Dowd’s main talking point was, “Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.” 

This isn’t hate speech, but rather commentary on why the shooting may have taken place. In other words, Dowd was just doing his job.

ABC also faced backlash for temporarily suspending Jimmy Kimmel’s show after he poked fun at President Trump and MAGA supporters for their own reactions to the shooting. The network pulled the show after Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr threatened to “take action” against ABC.

Like Gilmore and Dowd, Kimmel did not celebrate Kirk’s death, but he was penalized anyway. 

Ironically, less than two weeks after Dowd’s firing, MSNBC published an article called “ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel is corporate cowardice.” The same could be said for their firing of Dowd. The outlet should’ve stood behind their employee. 

Canadians and Kirk: the Criminal Code 

In Canada, we have the right to freedom of expression. We also have a Criminal Code that prohibits hate speech.

Many of Kirk’s comments could be considered violations under the Criminal Code of Canada, which states that “wilfully promot[ing] hatred against any identifiable group” is illegal. 

It’s unfair that Canadian citizens like Gilmore are being harassed and threatened, while Kirk’s own hateful rhetoric continues to be applauded.  

While debating reproductive rights, Kirk compared abortion to the Holocaust — a statement that, if made in Canada, may qualify as “downplaying the Holocaust” and the “wilful promotion of antisemitism.”

Kirk also called transgender people “an abomination” and a “throbbing middle finger to God,” saying someone should “take care of” transgender people “the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s.” 

That’s not including the many instances of blatant racism and misogyny upon which Kirk built his platform. Not everything he said was this horrific, but under Canadian law, some of Kirk’s “free speech” was actually hate speech. 

Gilmore, in comparison, was exercising her freedom of expression, yet far-right Americans responded in violent and hateful ways. 

It’s baffling how people are being punished for expressing their thoughts on Kirk’s death, when Kirk himself promoted the free expression of opinion.  

If the far-right is holding others to some higher moral ground, should they not have held Kirk to the same standard? 

I do not celebrate Kirk’s death or condone gun violence. But I will not support him just because he died. His rhetoric goes against what I stand for, and his killing does not change that.

Those who publicly mourn Kirk while staying silent on atrocities elsewhere reveal their selective empathy.

It’s telling how quickly people pay their respects to someone who spread racist and misogynistic rhetoric, yet have nothing to say about innocent victims of gun violence. 

Charlie Kirk is not a martyr. He incited hatred and cruelty. Being shot didn’t make him a good person.