A manhunt is still underway for the assassin who gunned down Charlie Kirk, the conservative media giant and founder of the influential student activist group Turning Point USA. Unfortunately, the fact that authorities have yet to confirm the killer's identity, means, and motivations has not prevented countless pundits from issuing sweeping condemnations of various forces to which they are assigning blame for Kirk's demise: rival political tribes, so-called violent rhetoric, guns, and even (why not) the state of Israel.

It bears repeating that this shocking murder occurred about 24 hours ago. Kirk's family and friends are probably still in shock, and the millions of people who agreed with Kirk's views, admired his accomplishments, listened to his shows, attended his conferences, or otherwise regarded him as a fellow traveler—in truth, he was one of the most important conservative media figures in history—are just beginning to grieve. It is far, far too early to start pointing fingers, particularly when the individual (or individuals) directly at fault has not yet been apprehended.

Thankfully, there has also been an outpouring of renunciations of violence from many people who were at odds with Kirk politically: mainstream media commentators, Democratic political figures, etc. These expressions of moral and human solidarity are refreshing. The New York Times' Ezra Klein, for instance, praised him for "practicing politics the right way." Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, and other prominent Democrats issued statements of unqualified support for Kirk's family. That's all good and can help to de-escalate tensions.

But many others are going off the deep end—and some are even making a mockery of the very ideas that Kirk stood for. They ought to know better.

I wanted to highlight a few of the unhinged responses, because it will be useful to explain why they are wrong, harmful, and sadly indicative of various strains of incorrect thinking.

One: Various left-wing people are suggesting that Kirk in effect brought this on himself because he employed, in their view, hateful rhetoric, and supported political causes that they believe are dangerous. Here was Andrea Junker, for instance.

Let's make one thing clear from the start: Charlie Kirk was the victim of a shooting in a country where he, along with other right-wing extremist influencers, have been inciting violence for years. — Kirk is neither a martyr nor a hero, he is a cause.

— Andrea Junker (@Strandjunker) September 10, 2025

In particular, some have singled out a statement he made in 2023: "It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment."

It's pathologically cruel and unfair to suggest that this is some kind of gotcha along the lines of Ha, bet you never would have guessed the gun death would be you! This becomes obvious if one substitutes gun deaths for any other kind of death. For instance, as Kirk noted in the 2023 video, there are around 40,000 motor vehicle deaths in the U.S. every year, but no one thinks cars should be banned outright. "[The country] has decided that the benefit of driving…is worth the cost" of these deaths, Kirk said. No one would consider this a particularly provocative observation. If Kirk had subsequently perished in a car accident, this would not change the situation. Americans broadly accept that there are tradeoffs between security and liberty; we want some level of liberty—generally more of it, if you're a libertarian—even at the cost of some otherwise preventable deaths.

Moreover, the general outlook shared by some in progressive circles—and one ex-MSNBC contributor—that Kirk espoused hateful views and thus had it coming, in some sense, is repugnant. The First Amendment right to express opinions deemed hateful by others should be cherished by all American political traditions, and if you feel inclined to say a victim of violence was essentially asking for it—you should probably stop talking. (Though you are by no means required to do so, thanks to the First Amendment.)

Two: Speaking of the First Amendment, at least one Republican legislator is proposing sweeping legislation in response to Kirk's death that not only violates the Constitution, it undermines the very principles that Kirk stood for. Rep. Clay Higgins (R–La.), for example, is calling for sweeping legislation to effectively criminalize any mocking of Kirk's death.

I'm going to use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk. If they ran their mouth with their smartass hatred celebrating the heinous murder of…

— Rep. Clay Higgins (@RepClayHiggins) September 11, 2025

"I'm also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked," wrote Higgins. "I'm basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk's assassination."

Anybody celebrating Kirk's assassination should be roundly mocked and criticized, and can suffer whatever professional consequences are appropriate. But the government must not pressure private organizations, large tech companies, and schools to "cancel with extreme prejudice." The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech; moreover, when government figures attempt to pressure private actors into self-silencing, we generally recognize this "jawboning" as a violation of the ethos of the First Amendment, whether or not it is literally prohibited.

Additionally, it's pretty clear that Kirk would not be in favor of this. Kirk decried cancel culture and enjoyed arguing with people who disagreed passionately with him, even if he found their views outrageous and wrong. Kirk did not want to cancel people with extreme prejudice: He wanted to debate them. He loved debating them. Watch any of those videos where he battled a bunch of leftists at once; it's obvious how much he's enjoying himself.

What Higgins is proposing would dishonor Kirk's memory.

Three: On a related note, there is absolutely no reason for Comedy Central to rid itself of the recent episode of South Park that made fun of Kirk.

So far, the television network has merely pulled a rerun of the episode, "Got a Nut," from its lineup; it did not air on Wednesday. That's an understandable move. What Comedy Central should not do is refuse to air the episode ever again, or remove it from whatever streaming platforms carry the full season.

The New York Post reported that so far, "it remains available to stream on Paramount+ with a subscription," but South Park's creators are facing considerable backlash from Kirk fans. This is misguided, not least of all because Kirk himself was a fan of South Park. In fact, he was honored by the show making fun of him and considered it a "badge of honor."

Four: Perhaps sensing that many on the right are going to cite Kirk's death as evidence that left-wing political violence is out of control, some progressive media figures are insisting that right-wing political violence is still a much bigger issue. This contention, though, relies on specious tallies of hate crime—and overlooks the more compelling point, which is that political violence remains fairly rare (for now).

Vox's Eric Levitz, for example, wrote on X that "right-wingers committed the vast majority of political murders" over the past decade.

A conservative murdered a Democratic lawmaker -- and wounded another -- three months ago.

Between 2013 and 2022, right-wingers committed the vast majority of political murders.

If you actually care about political violence, you should not spread wild lies about it. https://t.co/e2DnvIyv2S pic.twitter.com/NcywAmPLBp

— Eric Levitz (@EricLevitz) September 11, 2025

To be fair to Levitz, he was responding to a specific, incorrect claim from a conservative social media account that political violence is entirely a left-wing problem. It is not. A closer look at the very data Levitz is citing, however, provides a useful illustration of why various assumptions about escalating right-wing political violence are not so compelling.

Levitz referenced the Anti-Defamation League's 2024 report on murder and extremism, which does find that right-wing extremists committed not just most, but all of the ideologically motivated killings that year. That's because the grand total number of deaths was just 13. (It was a bad year for extremist killers.) Yet on New Year's Day, just a few hours outside the scope of the report, an Islamic extremist killed 14 people in New Orleans. Shifting the time frame ever so slightly would have reduced the percentage of right-wing extremist murders from 100 percent to about 50 percent, which goes to show how arbitrary some of these statistics can be.

Moreover, the ADL's report includes some very important clarifications: Namely, the majority of the right-wing extremist murders involved white supremacist prison gangs. "White supremacist prison gangs are particularly violent, committing hate-related murders, murders of members of other gangs, murders related to criminal enterprises such as illegal narcotics and murders of their own gang members and associates for reasons that may include such perceived offenses as breaking rules, attempting to leave a gang or being a suspected informant," notes the ADL.

Other organizations that tabulate right-wing extremism, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, use creative and arguably misleading means to manufacture evidence that the number of hate groups in the U.S. is always increasing.

None of this means that rightwing extremists are harmless. White supremacist prison gangs are definitely a problem, even if they don't pose much of a threat to nonincarcerated Americans. But attempts to paint right-wing extremism as more threatening or prone to violence than left-wing extremism—or vice versa—often rely on sloppy and incomplete data. And importantly, nonideological violence—domestic violence, workplace violence, violence related to robberies and carjackings—is far, far more common. This is like arguing whether a penny weighs more than a nickel when there's also a gold bar weighing down the scales.

Five: Ian Carroll, an independent podcaster who has appeared on Joe Rogan's show and seems generally well-liked by contrarian, anti-establishment audiences, is convinced he already knows who killed Kirk: the state of Israel.

Yesterday was a turning point for Israel US relations.

Les than 24 hours and the internet already figured out who the most likely culprit was.

He was their friend. He basically dedicated his life to them. And they murdered him in front of his family.

Israel just shot…

— Ian Carroll (@IanCarrollShow) September 11, 2025

Carroll has not cited any evidence in favor of this theory, because there is none. This is a good reminder that while expertise is occasionally overvalued—and is used by mainstream folks as an excuse to shut down worthwhile conversations with less-credentialed individuals—there are also a bunch of morons spouting off nonsense on podcasts.

This Week on Free Media

I'm joined by Amber Duke and Niall Stanage in separate segments to discuss the latest news regarding Kamala Harris finally turning on Team Biden, the Charlotte train murder, and other subjects. We finished filming just as the news about Kirk was breaking, so you'll have to wait until next week to see us address it. (Today's episode of Rising dedicated significant airtime to the subject, however.)

More Free Media here.

Worth Watching

I finally started the second season of Wednesday, which is pretty good and opens with an extended segment making fun of the TSA. Just my cup of tea!

The post The Killing of Charlie Kirk: 5 Idiotic Responses on Social Media appeared first on Reason.com.