Republicans Warn: Show Respect for Charlie Kirk — or Face the Consequences
WASHINGTON, Sept 13 (Reuters) — In the aftermath of the fatal shooting of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk, prominent Republican figures and far-right allies are issuing a chilling warning to the public: mourn respectfully — or be prepared to face serious repercussions.
Kirk, a 31-year-old activist and outspoken Trump ally, was gunned down earlier this week, triggering a wave of mourning among conservatives and sparking a parallel campaign of retribution against those perceived as disrespecting his memory.
While political leaders across the spectrum — from Republicans to some Democrats — have condemned the killing, a growing backlash is targeting individuals who have expressed even measured or ironic reactions online. From private citizens to professionals in journalism, academia, and education, at least 15 individuals have already been fired or suspended over their comments on Kirk’s death, according to a Reuters investigation.
On Friday, a junior Nasdaq employee lost her job after making remarks about Kirk online. Others have been doxxed, harassed, and subjected to mass call-in campaigns demanding they be terminated from their positions.
What began as a polarized reaction to a high-profile death has morphed into a digital purge — one that critics say threatens free expression and reveals glaring double standards.
A Movement Fueled by Vengeance
Among the most vocal advocates of this retaliation campaign is far-right activist Laura Loomer, who is leveraging her platform on X (formerly Twitter) to rally supporters into action. Loomer has vowed to “ruin” the careers of anyone found “celebrating” Kirk’s death.
“Prepare to have your whole future professional aspirations ruined if you are sick enough to celebrate his death,” she wrote.
U.S. Rep. Clay Higgins, a Louisiana Republican with a history of incendiary statements, echoed Loomer’s sentiment. He called for lifetime bans from social media platforms for anyone who posted “hatred” following Kirk’s death.
“Those who ran their mouth celebrating the heinous murder of that beautiful young man should be banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER,” Higgins wrote.
Even members of the Biden administration have weighed in. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau expressed outrage over online commentary, saying consular officials had been instructed to “undertake appropriate action” against individuals who praised or mocked the incident — though he did not clarify what that action would entail.
A Double Standard in Political Violence?
The aggressive push to silence Kirk’s critics stands in sharp contrast to how many of these same figures responded to previous incidents of political violence — particularly when the victims were liberals or perceived as ideological opponents.
After the 2022 assault on Paul Pelosi, the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, many on the right — including Kirk — downplayed or even mocked the violent break-in.
Kirk went so far as to encourage the release of Pelosi’s assailant:
“If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out,” Kirk said on air with a grin.
Loomer falsely suggested that Pelosi and his attacker were romantically involved, dismissing the attack as a “booty call gone wrong.” Rep. Higgins posted a meme mocking the incident, which he later deleted.
For some, the inconsistency is glaring.
“This feels less like a defense of human decency and more like selective outrage based on political allegiance,” said Jay Childers, an associate professor of communications at the University of Kansas. “There’s a long history of elites trying to police public discourse, but the digital age has made those efforts more chaotic — and more dangerous.”
The Rise of a Digital Blacklist
One of the most troubling developments has been the creation of a website titled “Expose Charlie’s Murderers”, which claims to document individuals “supporting political violence” in the wake of Kirk’s death.
The site lists 41 names so far and says it has received over 20,000 submissions. Some of the people featured had indeed posted celebratory or sarcastic remarks. Others had merely quoted Kirk’s own words or criticized his legacy while explicitly denouncing the violence.
For example, several users highlighted Kirk’s 2023 remarks defending gun rights, in which he claimed some gun deaths were “worth it” to preserve the Second Amendment. Kirk described the U.S.’s high number of firearm-related deaths as “a prudent deal.”
The irony was not lost on some commentators, including those who are now being targeted.
“To be very, very clear, I don’t condone the murder of Charlie Kirk,” said one person featured on the site, speaking anonymously to Reuters. “But I do, at the same time, have to appreciate the irony of this situation.”
This individual’s employer has reportedly received a flood of threatening phone calls, demanding their firing. They say they now feel unsafe returning to work.
Squarespace, which hosts the blacklist site, did not respond to requests for comment. The site itself has also not revealed who runs it, how submissions are verified, or how it defines “supporting political violence.”
Consequences Beyond the Internet
What started as outrage over a political assassination has evolved into something more complex — and more dangerous. The coordinated effort to root out dissent has already had tangible consequences: job losses, harassment, doxxing, and widespread fear of reprisal for online speech.
While many would agree that celebrating death — any death — is distasteful, civil rights advocates warn that the current climate risks conflating genuine criticism with incitement.
“There’s a difference between condoning violence and pointing out hypocrisy,” said a free speech attorney familiar with several of the cases. “We’re now entering a space where even accurate quotations or ironic observations are being treated as criminal behavior.”
A Legacy Divided
Charlie Kirk was no stranger to controversy in life, and in death, he has become a political flashpoint.
As founder of Turning Point USA, Kirk spent the better part of a decade shaping right-wing youth activism, becoming a media fixture and rallying figure in Trump’s political movement. To his supporters, he was a fearless truth-teller unafraid to “own the libs.” To critics, he was a provocateur who trafficked in inflammatory rhetoric and misinformation.
His shooting has raised numerous questions — not just about gun violence, but about how political violence is processed, discussed, and weaponized in the United States.
What does it mean to “mourn respectfully” in a democracy built on free speech? And who gets to decide what that mourning looks like?
The answers are likely to be shaped not just by legal standards, but by power — who has it, who doesn’t, and who can mobilize faster in an era where a tweet can cost someone their job, their reputation, or worse.
