Just over a week ago, Charlie Kirk was brutally murdered by a leftist assassin while hosting an open mic debating event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. In the days following this horrific incident, many on both the left and right have responded by calling for American society to make an even firmer commitment to “free speech” and open debate. These reactions are understandable, but they miss the grim reality that the “marketplace of ideas” can no longer coexist with the increasingly dangerous and extreme ideology of the far-left. Their embrace of violence demands a stark reassessment of our approach to open discourse, lest we allow the foundations of civil society to crumble under their assaults.
One article taking the aforementioned “more free speech” position has been published in the pages of The Observer, titled “The threat to free speech on college campuses.” In this piece, the author quite reasonably argues “that citizens should settle their differences with the ballot, not the bullet,” and that “Notre Dame should strive harder to uphold the ideal of free speech that Kirk fought for.” I do not necessarily disagree. However, these points raise a key question — what should be done when one side rejects this premise entirely? The author’s tribute to Kirk’s legacy is admirable, but the article’s logic leads to the inevitable conclusion that if the far-left wants to kill you for your ideas, all the right can do is debate them harder. This is an obviously untenable proposition, and it exposes the fatal flaw in clinging to free speech absolutism as a solution to political violence. The far-left’s actions prove they seek not dialogue, but destruction — a truth we can no longer afford to ignore.
Like any marketplace, the marketplace of ideas only works when its participants agree on a common set of principles, rules and boundaries that must be adhered to. Just as a market needs honest trade to function, ideas must compete through reason and mutual respect, not violence or intimidation. When these norms are ignored, the free exchange of ideas collapses. Today it is clear that the far-left does not simply withdraw from debate but seeks to dominate and silence it. Their hostility to shared norms has transformed into a campaign against the conditions that make free expression possible, endangering the foundations of our republic.
The savage assassination of Charlie Kirk is the most recent example of this, but hardly the only one. For years, leftists have violently protested campus speakers they disagree with, assaulted attendees of Trump rallies and have engaged in vicious online censorship and doxxing of conservative voices. A recent poll showed that a plurality of young Americans, disproportionately those on the left, had a favorable view of United Healthcare CEO assassin Luigi Mangione. Another survey found that over half of self-described leftists would view the hypothetical assassination of President Donald Trump as at least “partially justified.” These chilling statistics reveal a growing tolerance for violence as a political weapon among the far-left, a trend that poisons the well of public discourse and emboldens further atrocities.
This understanding makes clear that including the far-left in a “free-speech zone” is akin to welcoming the lion into the henhouse. Open discourse can never be possible with those who take a desire for dialogue as weakness and exploit it to push their agenda of chaos and coercion. To continue to allow the far-left to operate in such public forums risks normalizing their destructive behavior, emboldening further acts of extremism. True free speech demands accountability, not appeasement, for those who seek to dismantle it through force and fear. Failing to confront this menace head-on only invites more bloodshed and erodes the foundation of a civilized society.
Rather than vague calls for more free speech, what must be done is immediate action to politically stamp out the far-left from the public square. Individuals promoting extreme left-wing views, such as endorsing violence against figures like Charlie Kirk, should be purged from institutions and socially ostracized. Left-wing NGOs, long known to be hotbeds of agitation and incitement, should be dismantled and have their assets seized. There can no longer be tolerance for those who hijack the institutions of Western Civilization only to advocate for its destruction. These decisive measures are the only path to preserving the integrity of open discourse and ensuring that violence does not become the arbiter of ideas.
Such action would hardly be unprecedented. During the Cold War, the U.S. Government routinely cracked down on communist organizations and figures that posed an imminent threat to the social order. Through targeted measures, authorities curtailed the influence of those advocating for destructive ideologies, prioritizing the stability of democratic institutions. The danger posed to America by the modern left today is no different. History proves that resolute steps are necessary when ideologies threaten the very fabric of a free society, and we must heed its lessons now.
The “marketplace of ideas” as we know it died with the bullet that tore through Charlie Kirk’s neck. The attack made clear that there is no debate left to have with the far left — only to confront and politically defeat them. America must act with fierce urgency to restore a public square where ideas can flourish without the shadow of violence. To do anything less is to surrender our society to the chaos of those who would rather kill than converse, betraying the very principles Kirk died defending.
Shri Thakur, co-president of the Notre Dame College Republicans
Class of 2026
Sept. 17
