Tribute to late Charlie Kirk illuminates division in Kansas politics on meaning of free speech
Rep. Brooklynne Mosley, D-Lawrence, is among members of the Kansas Legislature expressing gratitude for the constitutional right to free speech, but objecting to work by Republican colleagues to honor each Oct. 14 the late Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist killed by an assassin in 2025. She is seen here during a Jan. 27, 2026, legislative hearing.(Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — The insistence by Republicans in the Kansas Legislature to honor the late activist and media personality Charlie Kirk gave rise to loud partisan outcries among Democrats.
While members of both parties shared reverence for the constitutional right to free speech and loathing of political violence, Kirk’s use of the First Amendment led to deep division about how his opinions ought to be interpreted. The GOP-led Senate and House passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 1615, which committed the Legislature to annually mark Oct. 14 as Charlie Kirk Free Speech Day. It urged Kansas governors to likewise celebrate Kirk.
The resolution unleashed, especially in the House, a wave of hostility and goodwill toward the Turning Point USA co-founder and loyalist to President Donald Trump.
Rep. Brooklynne Mosley, a Lawrence Democrat, said no one deserved to have their life ended by an assassin’s bullet. However, she said, not everyone who lost their life to violence ought to be honored by state government.
“I pity my colleagues who are so desperate for heroes that they have to settle for a man who espoused sexist and racist views,” she said.
Rep. Blake Carpenter, a Derby Republican, said consideration of the resolution allowed the 165 legislators in Kansas to reflect on how people too often distorted words spoken by rivals. He said Kansans were living in a “moment where context isn’t just ignored, it’s discarded.”
He said statements by Kirk were unfairly repackaged by his detractors to promote outrage.
“This isn’t about defending every word, but about intellectual honesty,” Carpenter said. “When we strip context to confirm our views, we stop persuading and start performing. Trust erodes, polarization hardens and real debate dies. A healthier public square requires listening fully, quoting accurately and engaging the strongest version of opposing views.”
Rep. Kristey Williams says Charlie Kirk was a “godly man” who supported respectful dialogue and free speech. Williams is seen here during a Jan. 22, 2026, legislative hearing. (Photo by Morgan Chilson/Kansas Reflector)
‘Honest-seeking eyes’
On Sept. 10, Kirk was fatally shot during an outdoor public debate at Utah Valley University. An estimated 100,000 people attended his memorial service in Arizona. Trump posthumously awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Kirk, 31, frequently articulated conservative or populist views aligned with Christian nationalists. His critics labeled him divisive, xenophobic or racist. He often delved into opposition to LGBTQ+ rights, gun control, abortion, and programs tied to diversity, equity and inclusion.
“Charlie Kirk may have advocated for free speech, but he used his speech to push bigoted, racist and misogynistic views and incendiary rhetoric,” said Rep. Lindsay Vaughn, D-Overland Park. “This is the very type of rhetoric that perpetuates political violence. If we want to end political violence, we need to condemn all political violence.”
Rep. Kristey Williams, R-Augusta, said Kirk’s death prompted easily disproven accounts of his life. She said Kirk was a “godly man whose life reflected courage, curiosity and a commitment to open debate.”
“He believed progress comes when citizens listen to one another and test ideas respectfully,” she said. “My vote affirms Charlie’s values of family, country, respectful dialogue and free speech and invites Kansans to study the full record with unbiased and honest-seeking eyes.”
Williams’ thoughts echoed those of Senate President Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican, who alleged Senate Democrats were guilty of embellishing comments attributed to Kirk.
“It’s so far out of context, it’s appalling. It is the opposite of what (Kirk’s) talking about. He represented Christ’s love inside difficult conversations,” Masterson said.
Rep. Ford Carr refused to support the Charlie Kirk resolution because he wasn’t racist, sexist, a bigot, homophobic or coward. He is seen here during a Jan. 28, 2026, session of the House. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
Racism and bigotry
Rep. Ford Carr, D-Wichita, said there was no way he could support the Kirk resolution passed 87-35 in the House and 30-9 by the Senate.
“I am neither a racist, a sexist or bigot,” Carr said. “Neither do I suffer from homophobia or the cowardice that would force me to vote with a group of white supremacists only to appease a Kansas Maga.”
Rep. Jerry Stogsdill, a Prairie Village Democrat, said expressions of political opinion shouldn’t be met with violence, “but no one should be praised, rewarded or commended for supporting, encouraging or spreading racism, bigotry or misogyny.”
The resolution didn’t address the political campaigns to silence Kirk’s critics after his death, said Rep. Stephanie Sawyer Clayton, D-Overland Park.
“In the wake of the terrible violence that took Charlie Kirk’s life for using his freedom of speech, I saw a great deal of Kansans who went specifically against other Kansans who spoke against what Charlie stood for,” she said. “People lost their jobs for using their freedom of speech in regards to his murder and the things that he said. People faced political violence. I stand with those Kansans and their rights to freedom of speech.”