In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk by a violently deranged and hate-filled leftist (yes, that is a confirmed fact), some on the hard Left have been publicly expressing justifications for, and even celebrations of, the murder. These ghouls do not represent America, nor do they represent America's center-left coalition writ large. Many politicians, public figures and private citizens on the 'progressive' end of the spectrum have prominently and unequivocally denounced the killing. This must be acknowledged and embraced with gratitude by all people of good will. The forces of decency must stand together against the cancer of political violence and twisted vigilantism. What must also be said is that there is a toxic and not-insignificant strain of leftism that indulges, excuses, and cheers on this evil. We saw it after the cold-blooded murder of healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City. We've seen it repeatedly from the pro-Hamas hate mob for nearly two straight years. And we're seeing it again in the wake of Kirk's violent demise. Applauding murder is vile and should have no place in a civilized, free society. This should not be controversial.
As always, the shooter in this case (and any potential accomplices) is directly responsible for this horrific atrocity. Others are responsible for how they respond to it. Reveling in someone's death over political differences is a mark of profound brokenness. Alarmingly, it is too common in our culture, and it feels like the rot is spreading and becoming more normalized. To wit, both of these data points are too low, in my view, and one of them is startlingly so. A vast, disturbing, revealing partisan gap:
— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) September 11, 2025
I'd submit that privately harboring some perverse facsimile of joy or happiness upon a political opponent's death should inspire serious introspection within one's conscience and heart. But publicly advertising such depravity descends to an even uglier level of darkness. How should people who choose to engage in such inhuman and repulsive speech be treated by the rest of us? Conservatives have, for years, repudiated and lamented 'cancel culture,' wherein people are punished, fired and ostracized over differing political beliefs. The phenomenon has plagued institutions dominated by leftism, in particular, for quite some time, spiraling into particularly acute spasms of madness circa 2020. Many cancel culture practitioners have defended their tactics by describing them as delivering "accountability" to deserving miscreants. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, the argument goes.
While many on the Right have bemoaned and rejected the escalation and over-application of this form of societal shaming and opprobrium, others, in turn, have urged their side to 'fight fire with fire.' If the Left is going to enforce their beliefs through this sort of brute force, so should we. Make the bullying a two-way street. In our 2015 book, End of Discussion, Mary Katharine Ham and I built a case against 'cancel culture' run amok, even prior to that specific term's invention and proliferation. We urged the Left to abandon or heavily scale back its practice of visiting harsh social sanctions upon ideological transgressors. We warned the Right against following their illiberal opponents down the same, destructive path. In some respects, America finally seems to be pulling back from the brink on this front. A major backlash to the mean-spiritedness and collective psychosis of left-wing cancel culture (which has, admittedly, featured some in-kind boycotts and cancellations, pushing various corporations and institutions back in the direction of self preservation-minded neutrality) has restored something of an equilibrium within this realm of the culture wars.
But ominous undercurrents endure. In response to Charlie Kirk's public execution by a demented sniper, cruel, callous, and frankly demonic expressions of solidarity and pleasure have exploded across social media. These reactions should not be exploited to attack an entire political party or movement, nor should we despair over the appalling words and conduct of a relative fringe. But the scope of this ugliness should not be understated either. Legions of Americans openly endorsed the Thompson killing, with many lusting after the accused gunman. Throngs of people have marched in our streets and across our campuses shouting the genocidal slogans of a literal terrorist organization following the worst mass-slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. And thousands upon thousands of our fellow countrymen decided that a 31-year-old husband and father being shot in the throat, in front of a large crowd, presented an occasion to advertise their degeneracy to the world.
There are, of course, examples of right-wing political violence in our country. I will note that some of the prominent alleged examples of this phenomenon are actually factually misplaced, from the Gabby Giffords shooting, to the recent assassination and attempted assassination of Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota. Neither of those terrible incidents appear to have been motivated by partisan or ideological animus. Regardless, all political violence is evil and thoroughly unacceptable. A strong case can be made that this scourge has emerged disproportionately from the Left in recent years, some deeply flawed 'studies' and statistics notwithstanding. That assertion may be debatable to some, and it should be acknowledged that some on the Right have engaged in deeply unseemly mockery or conspiracy-mongering after violent attacks against well-known leftist figures (the Paul Pelosi assault comes to mind). But jubilation and outright endorsements of said violence have been blessedly and vanishingly rare. I believe that it is a statement of demonstrable fact that in today's America, publicly-professed pro-murder political sentiment exists almost exclusively within the sewers of the radical Left. And those sewers are crowded.
Which returns us to the question posed above: What can or should be done about it? Is it hypocritical for anti-'cancel culture' conservatives -- myself included -- to accept or embrace public shaming and firings for those who celebrate the assassination of Charlie Kirk? I have concluded that no, it is not. Opposition to cancel culture, at least as I conceive of it, is rooted in the belief that people shouldn't suffer severe punishments, including loss of livelihood, over political differences. This is not the same as suggesting that Americans should never be confronted with serious consequences for their speech. It is the idea that the bar for what we tolerate ought to be very high in a pluralistic and free society. Yet limits do and must exist. If someone went online and posted their hatred for black people, perhaps using the N-word and expressing a desire for racial minorities to be killed, that person should not expect the principle of free speech to save them from profound and negative ramifications, personally and professionally. Very few anti-cancellation advocates would rush to that person's defense, nor should they. While explicit, open expressions of racism should not result in criminal prosecutions (the First Amendment protects such odious speech), our society should treat such utterances as unacceptable violations of a bright moral and ethical line.
The same ought to apply to statements in support of politically-inspired violence, and especially lethal violence. Murder, after all, is the ultimate and most egregious and irreversible form of cancellation. Defending and performing virtual cartwheels over a political opponent's murder does not constitute a legitimate difference of opinion. It is a sinister, sociopathic manifestation of darkness. Can anyone genuinely argue otherwise, in good faith? Applauding murder is a not a run-of-the-mill differing viewpoint. It is an evil impulse that rips at the shared fabric of our country and our humanity. Establishing and enforcing a cultural guardrail against approving or celebrating murder isn't "cancel culture" at all; it's an act of basic societal hygiene. As stated above, our 'cancellation' bar should be set quite high. Sentiments such as, 'people I hate for political reasons deserve to be shot to death, I'm glad they're dead, and I only wish they'd suffered more' clear that bar. Easily. As others have stated, if someone believes Charlie Kirk deserved to lose his life because of his beliefs, they can hardly object to losing their jobs because of theirs. That's a snappy talking point, but is there a convincing rebuttal to it? I'll close with three more points:
(1) While enforcing this particular guardrail, we should resist the temptation to lower the threshold to include garden variety or mundane political and policy disagreements. Someone who posts "free Palestine" shouldn't be threatened with 'cancellation,' even though many of us find that associated movement to be violent and morally repellant (embracing genocidal slogans, flaunting overt bigotry, or tearing down hostage posters is a different discussion). Stating support for abortion-on-demand throughout nine months of pregnancy is also a deeply objectionable and morally repugnant stance, in my view, but doesn't rise to the level of having one's employment threatened. Even reacting to Charlie Kirk's shooting with negative comments about him, declining to mourn him, or calling for increased gun control restrictions -- all potentially unseemly and absolutely controversial -- do not cross this boundary. Endorsing and cheering murder, however, does. If we cannot agree on forcefully rejecting that, and maintaining a necessary taboo, then no standard for decency and against degeneracy can survive. And neither can our shared, free society, I fear.
(2) At least anecdotally, it very much seems like the political murder enthusiasts reside disproportionately in the education space. Those who are keeping track of the violent death cheerleaders online have highlighted a seemingly endless parade of teachers, professors and school administrators who have exposed themselves with this shameful and execrable behavior. I would argue that people tasked with caring for and educating children are especially unfit for purpose if they demonstrate that political beliefs and speech with which they disagree could legitimately amount to a death warrant. This is a neon sign for disqualifyingly depraved morals and horrific judgment. It rises to the level of intolerable. This is also relevant to others in positions of public trust, including those in public service and the medical profession. I'm not convinced that every single schlub and cretin who espouses pro-murder sentiments should lose their jobs (though I'm not closed to that proposition either). But it is appropriate for people who hold sensitive positions that rely on community trust, particularly involving children, to be held to a higher standard. But again, the standard is not terribly high at all. It's simply, do not justify and celebrate the murder of people with whom you disagree.
(3) I've seen a flurry of 'news' media stories expressing deep concern for the 'cancel culture' victims who have already been forced out of their employment thanks to their own pro-murder outbursts. Won't you think of the poor assassination fetishists? Let's glide past the reality that many of these same outlets have been working overtime to smear the victim of this assassination after his death, trafficking in outrageous distortions and outright lies, it is beyond rich to see the journalist class suddenly sounding the alarm against cancellations. If the roles were reversed, it would be journalists themselves digging up the social media posts, contacting employers, etc. We know this because they've done so. For years. Journalists have been some of the most enthusiastic cancel mob participants -- when the targets are people they detest, that is. When the targets are reprobates who are clapping and laughing maniacally at the public execution of someone the journalists also detest, free expression abruptly becomes sacrosanct again. Spare us. Granted, the hypocrisy and double standards of the media are not necessarily substantive or affirmative arguments in favor of any course of action. But here, they do supply ample cause to ignore journalists' offended bleatings. Credibility, once squandered, is difficult to regain. And many in the press seem determined to forever crush their own.
In summary, we should be against the excesses and abuses of cancel culture, against political violence, and against the notion that aggressively policing grotesque celebrations of the latter amounts to the former.