Conservative journalists, commentators, and other media figures have spent the second half of this week mourning the loss of TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk. Like Charlie, they all make their living discussing and debating ideas, defending conservative principles, and pushing back against the Democratic Party and the Left.
On Wednesday, Scott Jennings went on CNN and said, "I’m not sure it’s safe to be an outspoken conservative walking around in America right now. There’s a lot of people out there who are in absolute shock and are horrified by this."
Today, he spoke with Mary Katherine Ham, who said, "To see someone who's a friend of mine lose his life for debating is more than disturbing." Ham pointed out that what Charlie did is what she loves to do, and does as a full-time job: to take on people who disagree with her in a "kind, and respectful, and often fun way."
.@mkhammer reflects on the assassination of Charlie Kirk and what this means for the future of free speech in the United States of America.
— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) September 12, 2025
"To see someone, whose a friend of mine, lose his life for debating is more than disturbing." pic.twitter.com/e9PPZ8qFAq
Ham intends, as we all do, to continue to go forward and "take some of [Kirk's] bravery" with her.
The feelings of concern stretch across the Atlantic. British TV presenter and journalist Jeremy Clarkson expressed his worry about being a columnist now:
Recommended
For the first time in my life, I’m genuinely frightened about being a newspaper columnist.
— Jeremy Clarkson (@JeremyClarkson) September 10, 2025
It's a sad commentary on the state of political discourse when the free exchange of ideas and free thought is dampened by the threat of, and very real acts of, violence.
But Scottish comedian Jo Caulfield believes she has a simple solution, telling Clarkson to "stop being so objectionable."
Well, stop being so objectionable.
— Jo Caulfield (@Jo_Caulfield) September 11, 2025
Problem solved.
Simples. https://t.co/AgJpMupVnC
Who gets to define "objectionable"?
Is Caulfield the one who will decide what is and isn't acceptable speech? What about guys like Tim Walz, who wanted a "hate speech" registry in Minnesota? A gal could land on that registry for the "thought crime" of supporting author J.K. Rowling.
What Caulfield means by "objectionable," of course, is "stuff I don't like." As do all Leftists and Democrats.
In the days since Kirk's murder, Democrats and media alike have blamed "Republican rhetoric" -- including some of the things Kirk believed and said -- for "increasing" political violence, while washing their hands of their own rhetoric. This includes Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), who said she and her fellow Democrats have never incited violence.
Jennings and Ham are not alone in their determination to keep speaking publicly about conservative issues. Yesterday, Ben Shapiro also had a very pointed message for those who would hope this week would silence conservatives, vowing to "pick up that blood-stained microphone where Charlie left it" and that "we will never let Charlie's voice die."
If people like Caulfield find that objectionable, so be it.
