In recent years, political violence has been reaping the fields of freedom of speech, threatening the voices of many who deserve to be heard. If this issue is not addressed through a clear decision favoring civil discourse over violence, then democracy itself will be rendered meaningless, and our freedom to speak will be lost to fear and conflict.
This nationwide concern for the future of US democracy in the midst of political violence returned on Sept. 10, 2025. Charlie Kirk, an American conservative political activist, was assassinated at Utah Valley University at a “Prove Me Wrong” event while discussing gun violence in the United States. He was only 31 years old.
Kirk was the founder and CEO of the non-profit organization Turning Point USA. Through this organization, he advocated for conservative politics on educational campuses, being best known for doing so through civil political discourse with the general public at “Prove Me Wrong” events, where he encouraged participants to challenge his views.
It was here that civil discourse was interrupted with uncivil violence.
Kirk’s assassination set the stage for a massive fallout that took the United States by storm. Over 100 people, most notably Jimmy Kimmel, have controversially faced consequences regarding their comments about Charlie Kirk’s murder. This series of disciplinary actions towards these individuals has caused heated public debates over the government’s involvement in freedom of speech.
Additionally, this assassination follows the greater trend of heightened political violence in the US. According to the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), there were four politically violent acts in the US in 2024, up from none in 2015.
Recent cases following this trend include the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, US President and Paul Pelosi, husband of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Although many of Charlie Kirk’s claims regarding immigration, gun control and civil rights draw intense controversy across all media, many individuals in the US believe and understand that violence should not be the means towards answering those statements.
Concerningly, though, an increasing few feel that the use of political violence is justified towards silencing controversial, politically sensitive claims.
According to a study conducted before the attack on Charlie Kirk by Rutgers University and the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) on “assassination culture” in the United States, around 38 percent of respondents stated that murdering President Trump would be at least somewhat justified. This number was even higher with those identifying as left-of-center, with 56 percent reporting so.
This number is very disturbing; it’s evidence that the fundamental democratic principles of this nation, such as freedom of speech, are slowly but surely being eroded away.
Previously, speakers exercised their freedom of speech with limited fear of violent backlash, but now, this is no longer the case. It is imperative to note that political violence never accomplishes the intended goal of changing public opinion. The murder of Charlie Kirk may have silenced his voice, but it has roused the voice of countless others, supporters and opponents alike.
Even more so, political violence creates unnecessary chaos that interferes with the usual order and harmony, so to speak. In the case of Charlie Kirk, many of those who mourned the loss of the conservative figure, including President Trump, labelled members of the far-left wing as responsible, causing a widespread crackdown on left-wing activists and speakers, such as Jimmy Kimmel, that further contributed to the murder’s fallout.
The chaos from a single politically violent act is profound, not to mention the immense grief and suffering caused as well. Not only is political violence ineffective at stating a view, but it is morally wrong to murder a person for exercising a right endowed at birth.
Political violence is a fundamental challenge to the democracy of the United States. The federal government is required to protect freedom of speech/expression, no matter how controversial, but the threat of violence discourages people from expressing their voice and opinion.
Charlie Kirk’s controversial views on race, firearms and LGBTQ rights may not be the best lesson to take away from his death; rather, the most important takeaway from this entire episode of political violence is that the vitality of American democracy is measured not by the lack of controversy, but by the willingness of its people to address that controversy through verbal debate rather than violent force.
The current government is not responsible for the rapid increase in politically motivated violent acts in recent years. Preventing political violence from occurring in the first place begins at schools like GA. Here, several measures are taken to encourage civil discourse inside and outside of classrooms.
The previous year, GA students attended various workshops and events to learn more about democracy and elections in the United States. In history and English classrooms, teachers encourage students to lead class discussions, with the teacher serving as a figure of direction.
During these Harkness discussions, students share their own unique claims alongside their supporting evidence.
I, Anshul Shah, have never once felt threatened during these Harkness discussions for sharing my opinions and beliefs, no matter how controversial they may be.
If my classmates disagreed, they willingly stated their disagreement along with concrete examples for why they felt so. Despite having firm beliefs, I am still open towards understanding other perspectives that can further better my own.
These twenty-first-century skills of openness and civil discussion in an educational setting can be extended to a political context. If a disagreement arises during a debate, we must not resort to violent means; rather, we must convince our opponent that our thought process is valid by providing concrete evidence.
It is the unwavering duty of every citizen to actively engage in resolving contemporary issues through civil, reasoned discourse. Political violence, when unaddressed, discourages public speaking and causes widespread fear of democratic engagement.
Thus, for the continuation of US democracy, we must address political issues through constructive conversation, rather than political violence. A nation can only truly be a democracy when all citizens can speak freely without the threat of violent reprisal.
With the amount of politically-motivated violent acts increasing faster than ever, let’s work together to build a more peaceful, cooperative and resilient nation through civil political discourse. If not, democracy will ultimately be lost in the cycle of violence and grief, causing our nation to fall into perdition.
SOURCES:
Hasan Piker Opens Up About the Fallout From Charlie Kirk’s Killing – POLITICO
Minnesota Attack Is the Latest in a Rising Wave of Political Violence