Charlie Kirk’s assassination shocked the world. But also shocking was how many people rushed to excuse it, blaming his supposed “inflammatory rhetoric,” or worse, openly celebrating his death as if it were the natural outcome of disagreeing with him.

What this revealed is chilling. It wasn’t only one unhinged assassin who thought Charlie’s opinions deserved death — it was tens of thousands online who cheered him on. That chorus of applause for political murder ought to be seen as a form of incitement, normalizing violence as an acceptable response to speech.

In the wake of this demonic display, a database emerged cataloguing over 20,000-40,000 individuals who celebrated Charlie’s killing. Reports suggest many have already faced consequences: journalists, professors, airline workers, and doctors have been disciplined or fired after their comments came to light.

And suddenly, the cries began: “Free speech!” “Cancel culture!” The very same voices who mock conservatives for losing jobs over expressing biblical views on marriage or gender are now aghast that celebrating an assassination might cost someone their career.

There is a world of difference between being punished for affirming a moral truth and losing your job because you publicly revelled in the murder of a husband and father over politics.

And yet, in their twisted moral calculus, Charlie deserved death for speaking, but they don’t deserve to be fired for applauding it. He should lose his life for his words, but they shouldn’t lose their jobs for theirs.

We are not the same. And we need to stop pretending there is some sort of equivalence between us.

One side believes speech they dislike is violence, and that violence against their enemies is justified. The other side believes even their opponents have the right to speak, but that violence is never an acceptable answer to words. One side cheers the murder of a man because of his convictions, the other side mourns the loss of life, even when it’s someone they profoundly disagree with.

That is not a mere partisan difference. That is a significant religious and moral divide.

If you think a man deserved to die for his opinions, while insisting you deserve immunity when you celebrate his death, you are not operating from the same basic moral principles as those you condemn. If you conflate disagreement with hate, but defend applause for assassination as “free speech,” you are not simply expressing an alternative opinion; you are revealing a fundamentally inverted moral compass.

So no, there is no “shared middle ground” here. One worldview excuses murder and then demands protection when it glorifies it. The other rejects both. That is why we are not the same. And it’s time we stop pretending we are.