Free Speech, Provocation, and the Fragility of Liberal Democracy
Different Causes, Same Cost: Why Harvey Milk and Charlie Kirk Belong in the Same Conversation
The assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah in 2025 is shocking not only for its violence but also for what it says about the state of free speech in America. It also invites comparison with another figure from a different era: Harvey Milk, assassinated in San Francisco in 1978.
At first glance, the two men could not appear further apart: Milk, a progressive icon and pioneer for LGBTQ+ representation, and Kirk, a conservative activist and provocateur whose organization, Turning Point USA, became a megaphone for the populist right. Yet their stories share a profound through line. Both engaged in their right to speak freely, both challenged prevailing orthodoxies, and both had their lives violently ended while exercising the very rights that define a liberal democratic society.
Challenging the Status Quo
Harvey Milk defied a social and political culture that sought to silence or erase gay Americans. By running openly for office and winning a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, he compelled the city and the nation to confront the presence, dignity, and rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. His life’s work was an act of resistance against exclusion.
Charlie Kirk, in a different way, confronted what he framed as the ideological monoculture of higher education and youth culture. Through campus speeches, social media, and political organizing, he sought to challenge the liberal status quo in academic and cultural institutions. His rhetoric was sharp, his tone often combative, but his central claim—that conservatives deserved equal space in the national conversation—was itself an appeal to the democratic principle of free expression.
In both cases, the men became symbols of disruption, defying cultural dominance in their respective arenas.
Inspiring Followers
Milk was beloved not only for what he fought against, but for what he offered: hope. To gay Americans who lived closeted lives, his election was proof that dignity and representation were possible. His oratory fused moral conviction with optimism, rallying a movement to see itself as equal participants in democracy.
Kirk tapped into a different reservoir of energy: the sense of alienation felt by conservative students in overwhelmingly liberal settings. He built Turning Point USA into a national network that gave young conservatives an identity, a platform, and a mission. His followers also loved and admired him. For many young conservatives, he was a courageous defender of their values in hostile territory.
Though their messages diverged radically, both men mobilized communities by transforming grievance into collective purpose.
Fundamental Differences, Democratic Common Ground
It is also essential to be clear about their differences. Milk’s ultimate objective was greater equality and representation for those who had long been denied it; Kirk’s was the preservation and expansion of conservative cultural and political power. Many Americans passionately support one and strongly oppose the other, which is common for a democracy. More importantly, that is the reality of pluralism.
Yet in a liberal democracy, such opposing objectives must remain matters of debate, persuasion, and compromise—not of vitriol, demonization, or violence. A democracy that thrives is one where citizens contest ideas but stop short of seeking dominance at all costs. Thriving democracies require compromise, and sadly, political division and disregard for our fellow citizens hinder the United States’ ability to succeed.
Tragic Deaths
Harvey Milk was killed by Dan White, a fellow city supervisor who refused to accept his presence in office.
Charlie Kirk was killed while speaking at a university event. Though the full motives of his assassin are still under investigation, the act itself was a rejection of democratic engagement.
Both deaths were political in the truest sense: attempts to silence voices that some could not tolerate hearing.
The New Status Quo and Challenging It
At first glance, the comparison between Harvey Milk and Charlie Kirk will strike many as outrageous. Those on the far left may recoil at the idea of likening a civil rights pioneer to a conservative firebrand; those on the far right may be equally horrified at placing Kirk alongside a gay icon of progressive politics. But that discomfort is the point. In a liberal democracy, the test is whether we can recognize the common thread beneath sharp ideological differences. Both men exercised their right to speak freely, and both were silenced by violence.
The current rush to frame Kirk’s killing along partisan lines only proves how fragile our democracy has become. Commentators are quick to assign blame or turn tragedy into fodder for clicks and likes, often with little regard for the facts. This kind of opportunism fuels division, erodes public trust, and increases the likelihood of further violence.
Rational minds can see past the noise. The lesson of this moment is not to elevate angry talking heads but to insist that ideas—even those we despise—be debated rather than destroyed. Comparing Milk and Kirk is not about erasing their profound differences, but about refusing to surrender to a status quo where disagreement means dehumanization and violence.
Final Thoughts
Harvey Milk and Charlie Kirk stood at opposite poles of America’s political spectrum, yet they were united by one act: the exercise of free speech in pursuit of their vision of life, liberty, and happiness. Both became victims of political violence that, regardless of motive, represents a rejection of the ideals of liberal democracy.
The real challenge is to resist a new status quo where politics is fueled by outrage, where leaders court clicks with vitriol, and where violence is treated as an extension of debate. The temptation with political violence today is to quickly fold tragedy into partisan narratives, turning it into a weapon for one side or the other. But doing so only entrenches the very divisions that make such violence more likely in the first place.
Milk and Kirk remind us—uncomfortably—that democracy requires something more complicated than loyalty to a side. It needs defending the right of opponents to speak, insisting that disagreement remain within the bounds of persuasion and compromise, and rejecting any notion that dominance or dehumanization is an acceptable substitute for democratic engagement. If drawing this comparison makes you uncomfortable—or even angry—then take it as a challenge to rise above reflexive outrage and choose to be better.
That is the work of a free people.