In the shadow of a heartbreaking event—the shocking murder of Charlie Kirk on September 11, 2025, in Utah—the online world has erupted once again. As the founder of Turning Point USA and a prominent voice in conservative circles, Kirk’s death has sparked an avalanche of reactions. Tragically, amid the grief and calls for justice, there’s been a disturbing wave of vitriol from those who seem to revel in his passing. Posts celebrating the act, dancing on his grave figuratively (and sometimes literally in videos), and declaring that he “deserved” it have flooded social media platforms.
Let me state it plainly: I despise this kind of rhetoric. It’s not just distasteful; it’s dehumanizing and contributes to the very cycle of violence and division that led to this senseless loss. Celebrating murder, no matter one’s political disagreements, is a low that erodes the fabric of our society. It turns discourse into something dark and dangerous, where empathy is sacrificed on the altar of ideology.
Yet, in this grim moment, I find a peculiar sense of gratitude. These individuals are baring their souls—or lack thereof—for all to see. By posting publicly, often under their real names with identifiable profiles, they’re exposing their true colors. Teachers, doctors, public figures, and everyday folks alike are revealing a level of hatred that might otherwise stay hidden. And the consequences are swift: many are facing cancellation, job losses, and social backlash. Websites and accounts dedicated to highlighting these celebrations are popping up, making it easier to identify and hold accountable those who cross this moral line.
This transparency is crucial. In an era where online anonymity can shield the worst impulses, these people are choosing to step into the light. It allows employers, communities, and even law enforcement to take note. We’ve seen reports of educators showing assassination videos to children, nurses and executives posting ghoulish comments—actions that rightly lead to professional repercussions. It’s not about suppressing speech; it’s about the natural fallout from broadcasting hate in a public forum.
Don’t misunderstand me—I’m not calling for vigilante justice or doxxing. Free expression is vital, even when it’s abhorrent. But when words glorify violence, they invite scrutiny. In Kirk’s case, this exposure underscores the hypocrisy and intolerance on display, potentially galvanizing more people against such extremism. It reminds us that words have weight, and in the digital age, they can come back to haunt you.
As we process this tragedy, let’s hope it prompts reflection across the board. If those spewing vitriol are willing to reveal themselves, perhaps it’s an opportunity for society to address the root causes of such division and build toward something better.
What are your thoughts? Does this kind of exposure help curb hate, or does it deepen the divides? Share in the comments.