“Right-wing activist and commentator Charlie Kirk, an influential ally of President Donald Trump, was fatally shot in the neck on Wednesday at an event at a Utah university in what the governor described as a political assassination. Authorities had not yet publicly identified a suspect by Wednesday evening, nearly six hours after the shooting.” Reuters‍

‍

‍Both sides condemn Kirk’s killing and worry about political violence:

‍

‍“We could disagree about anything—and we did—but he would, without fail, engage civilly and explain his point of view. He did not do this, as many do, to make himself feel smart. He did it so he could share the other side of something he cared about. And he cared deeply. That’s the spirit he took to the hundreds of campuses he visited. Not denunciation. Not shouting down. Never an insult. He sought to debate ideas, and did so in hostile territory…

“Charlie all but recreated the public town square on these campuses with a tent and an irrepressible smile… [He] was not naive. In the video after he is shot, you can see a security team of at least half a dozen bodyguards surround him and spirit him away. Like anyone speaking their mind in public these days, he knew there was a risk. He had the courage anyway. And today he died under one of those tents where he defended freedom—his, and all of ours.”

‍Adam Rubenstein, Free Press

‍

‍“Our country is based on the principle that we must disagree peacefully. Our political disagreements may be intense and emotional, but they should never be violent. This balance requires restraint. Americans have to accept that their side will lose sometimes and that they may feel angry about their defeats. We cannot act on that anger with violence…

“Too many Americans are abandoning this ideal. Thirty-four percent of college students recently said they supported using violence in some circumstances to stop a campus speech, according to a poll from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression published a day before the Kirk shooting… This editorial board disagreed with Mr. Kirk on many policy questions, and we are unreservedly horrified by his killing.”

‍Editorial Board, New York Times

‍

‍“We cannot become numb to this. It doesn’t matter what Kirk’s politics are, what political causes he has supported, or which politicians he’s associated with. Defending, excusing, or justifying the murder of a fellow citizen — as some online freaks and cable news ghouls have done today — for what he said or what he believed is the sign of a black heart and a disordered mind…

“We are staring into the abyss. The moment when Americans of goodwill abstain from entering the public arena — as politicians, as activists, as citizens — will be the moment we refuse our God-given right to govern ourselves. If we are cowed by violence and the threat of violence into staying silent and avoiding political discourse, we are no longer free.”

‍Mark Antonio Wright, National Review

‍

‍“In many places, and in many periods of America’s own history, it was physically dangerous to say things that might be deeply unpopular among some of your fellow citizens. If you displeased the wrong person, you might have been arrested by the state or beaten up by a mob or assassinated by your political enemies. It has over the past fifty years been one of the remarkable achievements of liberal democracies to render that fear relatively remote…

“Defenders of free speech often worry about the heckler’s veto… But the danger which now faces the American Republic is deeper still. As violence descends on the land, and the price of engaging in political speech grows and grows, we are increasingly faced with something even scarier, both for the individual and for our political culture: the assassin’s veto.”

‍Yascha Mounk, Persuasion‍

‍

‍Other opinions below.