By Gustavo de Arístegui, as published by LA RAZÓN.

14 September 2025

The assassination of this conservative leader exposes political polarization, media demonization, and the threat to freedom of expression in the United States and Europe.

The truly tragic death of Charlie Kirk, murdered while speaking at a political rally, has laid bare some of the darkest pathologies of our time. It was not merely the assassination of a public figure, but a deliberate act aimed at silencing a voice and intimidating millions who share his ideas. The crime cannot be understood in isolation: it is the direct result of a climate of hatred fueled by political radicalization, media irresponsibility, and the systematic demonization of ideological adversaries.

Charlie Kirk was not an extremist or a violent agitator. He was a conservative activist, controversial for many, but firmly committed to democratic debate and freedom of expression. His assassination is therefore an attack not only against one man, but against the very foundations of pluralism in liberal democracies. When political disagreement degenerates into dehumanization, violence ceases to be unthinkable.

For years, certain sectors of the media and political activism have contributed to portraying ideological opponents as existential enemies rather than legitimate adversaries. Language matters. Words create realities. When opponents are labeled as “fascists,” “Nazis,” or “enemies of the people,” the step toward justifying violence becomes dangerously small. This dynamic is not exclusive to the United States; Europe is experiencing similar patterns of polarization and radicalization.

The reaction to Kirk’s assassination has been revealing and deeply troubling. Instead of a unanimous condemnation, some voices rushed to contextualize, relativize, or even implicitly justify the crime. Others trivialized the horror, reducing it to a predictable consequence of political confrontation. This moral ambiguity is profoundly corrosive. There can be no “buts” or “ifs” when confronting political murder.

Freedom of expression is not protected by selectively defending only those voices we agree with. It is protected by defending the right of others to speak, even when their ideas are uncomfortable, unpopular, or sharply opposed to our own. When society begins to accept that certain opinions deserve violence, democracy itself is placed in mortal danger.

The responsibility of political leaders and the media is enormous. Words that incite hatred, demonization, or collective guilt do not remain in the realm of rhetoric; they translate into real-world consequences. The assassination of Charlie Kirk should serve as a wake-up call. Trivializing horror does not neutralize it—it normalizes it.

If we fail to draw a firm moral line now, the spiral of violence will not stop here. Today it is a conservative activist; tomorrow it could be anyone whose views fall outside an increasingly narrow corridor of acceptable opinion. Democracies die not only through coups or revolutions, but through the gradual erosion of tolerance, responsibility, and moral clarity.

Charlie Kirk’s death is a tragedy. But turning that tragedy into a political weapon, or worse, into a footnote justified by ideology, would be an unforgivable betrayal of the values that democratic societies claim to defend.