American View: We must talk about the furore surrounding Charlie Kirk’s murder

Responsible Business15 Sep 2025

Every newsreader and social media influencer in the U.S.A. seems obsessed with last week’s murder of disingenuous polemicist Charlie Kirk. Therefore it’s only fitting to say something about the event since every other topic has been conveniently pushed off the front page until further notice. Unfortunately, there seems to be little appetite right now for dispassionate, nuanced discussion. That in mind, I’ll like to take a nonpartisan line of attack, which addresses the fallout from the crime rather than crime itself.

Whether you adored or despised the late Mr. Kirk, we can all agree that his murder has triggered a surge in violent rhetoric and stochastic terrorism online that has capitalised on the man’s death to justify all sorts of retaliative “action.” As Reuters argued on the day of the murder:

“Experts in domestic terrorism cite a convergence of factors for increased violence in the U.S.: economic insecurity, anxiety over shifting racial and ethnic demographics, and the increasingly inflammatory tone of political discourse. Traditional ideological divides — once centered on policy disagreements — have morphed into a deeper, more personal animosity. That anger is amplified by a mix of social media, conspiracy theories and personal grievances.”

“Personal grievances” cam mean an awful lot of things here, but since this is 21st century America, let’s be real: it’s mostly referring to bigotry.

To prove Reuters right, some influencers’ response to Kirk’s murder went well past “extreme” into “bat$*#& crazy” land. Rep (R-LA) Clay Higgins howled that he would leverage government authority to force private social media companies to impose lifetime bans on every user whose posts could be considered “belittling” to Kirk (Nepal would be proud). Hatemonger Laura Loomer called for “cracking down on the Left with the full force of the government.” January 6th insurrectionist Maria DeLuca declared (without evidence) “[the opposition party] “couldn’t beat [Kirk] in a debate, so they assassinated him.” Multiply these examples times the largest number you can think of you have half of all social media posts from the 11th and 12th until the real shooter was unmasked as … wait for it! … another disaffected, irony-poisoned, and “black-pilled” lone wolf. That is to say, not a zealot from the opposition party.

This was expected; the legion of online grifters that drive our culture make their money though fomenting fear and outrage. They – right, left, and neither – deliberately stoke anxiety to get clicks, sell merch, and monopolize airtime. Truth is only relevant for them so long as it can be twisted to fit an inflammatory narrative. Attention is more important to these sophists than truth. If you’ve been online in the last ten years, this shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Similarly, foreign disinformation mills are making serious bank on Kirk’s murder. Since Americans were already polarized over Kirk’s work as a smirking political performance artist, lies and misrepresentations that feel true have resonated strongly with readers’ existing beliefs and prejudices. Social media was carpet bombed with plausible nonsense from fake profiles, exacerbating people’s heightened emotional states and impeding authorities’ ability to set the record straight. This is standard operating procedure for our geopolitical rivals and should be obvious to everyone … keyword there being “should.”

I remain aghast with how many Americans seem to lack the ability to identify and ignore blatantly obvious online horsepucky.

The residual effect of a weekend full of extremist hype has been, as Prof Sean Westwood phrased it, “pouring poison into the public well.” What this means to us in the corporate world is that our workers are going to return to the office on Monday charged up and anxious about both the reality of Charlie Kirk’s murder and the exaggerated-beyond-all-reason brouhaha surrounding it. Some people will be call for calm and restraint while others will call for retaliation and violence. Our people are keyed up and tensed for confrontation, so what do we as leaders tell them to calm things down?

This is, I believe, a greater problem than most leaders realise. It’s considered dangerous and taboo in the current climate for corporate leaders to address political topics, especially any topic that might be twisted to seem “disloyal” to President Trump. Corporate lawyers – already risk-averse by nature – get apoplectic at the thought of creating any official message that could draw the attention – and subsequent spiteful wrath – of the current administration. That’s understandable. It’s also a potentially deadly problem.

When workers are emotionally agitated, they’re robbed of focus, motivation, and trust. This is normal. It’s leadership’s job to allay those workers’ concerns and help them get back to normal. It’s good for the employees’ health, good for productivity, and – most importantly – good for the company culture to sooth inflamed nerves. Radicalized people who show up at work ready to “exact retribution” for some “higher” cause or perceived “threat” are a workplace violence incident waiting to manifest. We need to throw some metaphorical water on the flames and cool the discourse before anyone releases their pent-up fear and frustration in a career-ending confrontation … or worse.

I beg you to realise that this a topic that we can wait to blow over. The meaning of Charlie Kirk’s murder no longer has anything to do with the victim himself. His story has been hijacked by opportunists to stoke and inspire extreme reactions. This is part of the online agitators’ playbook: get viewers keyed up and craving “corrective” action, then give them nothing to do … thereby manifesting self-motivated “lone wolf” attackers that the agitators can deny any involvement with. These keyed up victims need to be talked back from the brink before they contribute to the cycle of preventable violence.

Early reports suggest that Kirk’s killer fit this profile: emotionally charged, radicalized, and encouraged to “do something” about an incendiary topic by cynical manipulators.

It’s darned hard to do that, though, when your lawyers demand lock-step Confucian denial as official crisis management policy. You can’t fight a fire that you refuse to perceive or acknowledge; that’s not how fires work. The longer leaders go without acknowledging and addressing the myriad issues, perceptions, and exacerbated emotional states of their people, the more likely it becomes that someone will do something that can’t be undone.

The hardest part of solving this problem is going to be achieving consensus within the “top deck” of your organisation to try addressing it. If you’re in charge, I contend you have a moral obligation to your people and an operational obligation to your business to prevent potential workplace violence. Yes, your lawyers will advise you to do nothing and hope that nothing regrettable happens but that’s not a strategy … That’s terrified paralysis. Are you really willing to stand by silently and allow one of your people to harm or kill another one of your people? I’d say that if you are, then you’re morally unfit to lead.

No matter how you personally feel about Charlie Kirk’s murder, consider the bigger picture: your workers aren’t severed. All the troubles that plague them outside of work ride along with them to work every day. Inflammatory topics don’t quiet down until quitting time. Stress accumulates and compounds. You can try and do something about this … or let the influencers and disinformation artists play out their toxic exhortations through their victims inside your office.