Charlie Kirk was all about DEBATE — this killing is an attack on free speech itself

What makes this assassination so especially heinous is that Charlie Kirk was the furthest thing from a demagogue or firebrand.

Yes, he took controversial positions (some we disagreed with!) — but was always ready, eager, to hash them out, vigorously and utterly without rancor.

His whole persona, his entire appeal, was his willingness and availability to debate, to subject his arguments to testing in the marketplace of ideas as he would joyfully test anyone else’s.

“‘What we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have a reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option”: Charlie Kirk spoke, lived and died according to those words.

He welcomed the chance to argue — civilly — with random people whose opinions differed completely; exemplified the spirit of liberal (in the old-school sense of espousing liberty and generosity of spirit) give-and-take.

How refreshing, in an age of shouting TV heads and vapid social-media posturing, that Charlie Kirk would go to any campus or auditorium to happily engage in lively conversation — without resorting to insults or mic-drop-ready applause lines.

It’s no coincidence he was killed on a university campus: He conducted many of his debates there, in the liberal belly of the academic beast — giving lefty students possibly their only exposure to conservative arguments, and inspiring beleaguered righties.

Not just on campus, of course: Charlie’s social-media reach was also enormous, a force contributing hugely to debates right and left.

Not least, at age 18 (!), he co-founded the youth outreach group Turning Point USA, leading it to the day of his death, growing it into a major force in conservative activism and a lifeboat for conservatives on campuses across the country.

His voice — measured, thoughtful, respectful — infuriated his opponents, almost all on the left and sure that conservatives have to be dumb, nasty, and intolerant: How dare Charlie Kirk present pro-family, pro-market ideas with calm confidence.

You can’t even honestly call this a political killing: Kirk was no candidate or politician; his only power was the power of the spoken word.

This assassination was nothing less than an attack on the principle of free speech itself.

We expect the killer will prove to suffer some level of mental illness, but we’re also grimly aware that some on the left will cheer this crime as somehow heroic, as they’ve done with Luigi Mangione and others.

And if some critical mass of people believe it’s reasonable to contest speech with deadly violence, then America is entering a dark and ugly era indeed.