The Iron Men of Social Media

John Bowie, LawFuel publisher

I was in Nice with the iron Man champs, by pure happenstance I must add, (the Norwegians swept the top places just in case care) when the Charlie Kirk social media pile-on occurred.

And being an Iron Man (in a non-generic sense) is what seems to be required for those expressing views on social media these days.

I admired Charlie Kirk’s ability to sit on college campuses with an open mike and take on all-comers. No-one had to agree with everything he said, but his intelligence and comms skills were consummate.

For all his faults, Charlie Kirk was more capable of reasoned debate than most academics teaching ‘critical thinking’ theory. He was controversial with his Judeo-Christian views, so last millenium to most, and could espouse and argue views on climate change, gender issues too that – brace yourself – men with penises were men.

So why did so many people feel they needed to dance on his grave, before Charlie’s body was even in there?

And why such eminent and sensible, smart people like our own Sam Stubbs, a man who could show.compassion with the zeal of a monk, calling him a racist, sexist and bigot.

All while Charlie’s wife and two kids were still counting the hours since his murder.

Of course the Stubbs’ comments were just one of thousands who joined the unseemly chorus of hate, but displayed the surprising array of those who hated Charlie Kirk.

The latest social corpse is Jimmy Kimmell, Late Night’s middle child who is like your cousin who turns up for Christmas uninvited. His wisecrack hastened his removal on-air.

All of which is grist to the MAGA mill as they descend upon those perceived as attacking Judaeo-Christian values by the grave-dancing and wise cracks about Charlie Kirk.

And that issue is one that is deadly serious for free speech, apart from the deadly impact upon Charlie himself.

There are serious issues for America that the increasingly divided country has to face.

But the sheer social media commentaries in the wake of the Kirk shooting remain a serious issue for everyone enveloped by social media, which literally is pretty well everyone.

What is it in the egos of those making pronouncements upon Charlie Kirk that sees themfeel compelled to express their hatred of someone whose murdered corpse is still warm?

It wasn’t just Sam Stubbs who thought we needed to know his thoughts here in New Zealand.

There have been brain-lite columns from the likes of Simon Wilson at the Herald. Obviously.

The eagerness to denounce even a murdered man shows how corrosive and bottom-dwelling social media has become everywhere.

LawFuel’s former Lawyer of the Year Tudo Clee volunteered that stepping foot into a New Zealand campus these days needed to be very afraid.

In the good old, pre-social media days you might be yelled out and and harried. Maybe even stop an inflight egg, but nothing like what we have today. Let alone a bullet engraved with ‘Catch’.

In 1975 I recall Rob Muldoon being escorted from Victoria University’s student union during the 1975 election after reading an introduction to a small and amateurish booklet I had written that touched on the Labour administration run by Bill Rowlind and in respect of which Muldoon had contributed a brief Foreword. (Labour are top reformers, but commonly hopeless administrators).

Muldoon aroused such animosity and abuse at the Victoria University event that he was removed by security, an event reported by the Evening Post.

Abuse, witty retorts, a bit of pushing and shoving characterised political debate in those days. Certainly no guns, although the local Dunmore Press did publish a modest-selling ‘thriller’ called ‘The Man Who Shot Rob Muldoon’. Gripping title, no?

For Charlie Kirk though, he received the full 2025 upgrade – bile, bullets and the braying brats of social media’s abyss – monstered by those who appear to have no capacity for self reflection.

Disagree with proselytisers like Charlie Kirk by all means, but to dance on the grave and egg on the culture that made the killing possible with bilious pronouncements is pure cowardice dressed up as a virtue, leaving everyone a little less ready to speak their minds.

We may have reached peak lunacy with Charlie Kirk’s shooting, but the real issue now is to consider how things will change regarding free speech in the post-Kirk world.

To espouse views, even as solidly grounded in conservatism as Charlie Kirk’s, requires both the physical and emotional protection afforded to men of iron – to stop the bile and the bullets. Whether US free speech laws remain iron-clad protection too is something we wil have to wait and see.