On Sept. 10, conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at Utah Valley University. Since then, the incident has fueled not only shock but also a heated discussion about the role of debate, free speech, and political violence in the U.S. Moreover, political leaders, celebrities, and everyday citizens have weighed in on Kirk’s legacy, often clashing over what his presence in American politics truly represented.
In a Sept. 27 interview with The New York Times, actor Sean Penn, best known for both his political outspokenness and his upcoming role as Colonel Steven J. Lockjaw in Paul Thomas Anderson’s 2025 dark action-comedy One Battle After Another, delivered a controversial yet thought-provoking statement. Although Penn emphasized that he disagreed with “almost everything” Kirk stood for, he stressed that America still needs people like Kirk in order to keep political debate alive.
“We need that debate,” Penn told the NYT. “We’ve gotta fight it out and find a compromise.”
RELATED:Trump Boasts “Highest Poll Numbers,” Data Disagrees
Penn’s View on Political Violence
Penn did not stop at advocating debate. Instead, he shifted toward the issue of political violence, which he described as “these fashions of violence.” According to him, Kirk’s killing felt different from other recent acts of political aggression. He explained:
“This one seems different. It seems different than the members of Congress. It seems different than the insurance executive. It seems even different than the attempt on the president. There’s something about this one.”
Furthermore, Penn argued that these cycles of violence spread like trends, but he believed they could be stopped if people of conscience across the political spectrum recognized that deep belief—even when opposed to their own—deserves respect.
“These things do come into fashion, and the way we kill the fashion of it is people of conscience on both sides recognizing that if somebody really believes something, that’s your friend.”
Respect for Conviction, Not Extremism
Penn stressed that he did not view Kirk as a cynical manipulator. Rather, he felt Kirk genuinely believed his positions. “I didn’t get the sense that he was one of these snake oil salesmen,” he said.
Moreover, the 65-year-old actor urged Americans to acknowledge that opposing viewpoints—even when controversial—can be “valid opinions.” Importantly, he clarified that this did not mean tolerating extremist ideologies.
“I’m not talking about some sociopathic Nazism,” Penn explained. “I’m talking about if somebody believes that a human being starts at conception, if you can’t understand that concept, you’re just stupid. And if you’re not willing to tolerate the concept as a concept that’s held as deeply as I may have a belief that, I don’t know, let the woman decide. All of these are valid opinions.”
Through this reasoning, Penn highlighted a tension at the heart of democracy: how far should tolerance extend when confronting ideas that affect real human lives?
Online Reactions: Praise and Criticism
Naturally, Penn’s remarks sparked intense reactions across Reddit and X (formerly Twitter). On Reddit, users quickly dissected his argument. One person wrote:
“It’s always the people whose very existence isn’t up for debate who want to normalize ‘debating’ the rights/humanity of marginalized people. As if this ‘fight’ is even fair given the backdrop of a political/cultural/economic system that already works to normalize/uphold white supremacy, misogyny, heteronormative relationships, gender norms, etc.”
This response underscored the frustration many feel when privileged voices frame deeply personal struggles as abstract topics for debate. In addition, another Reddit user pushed back even harder, stating:
“Debate and compromise should be between two reasonable positions. Racism and sexism and hate are not reasonable positions.”
On X, the criticism was equally sharp. One commenter remarked:
“Yea, let’s listen to the white rich guy who hasn’t dealt with the average citizens’ struggles for DECADES. I won’t argue that Kirk has a right to voice his opinion, but I will never compromise with anyone who preaches hate, and that’s what Kirk sold.”
However, not everyone dismissed Penn’s perspective. On the other side, some users appreciated that he acknowledged both the horror of Kirk’s murder and the importance of dialogue. One supportive comment read:
“Honestly, I don’t agree with Penn on politics but the fact someone like him is stating how horrific Kirk’s murder was and the fact we need to have these debates is evidence his death really did wake some people up. Respect for addressing the situation and making a good point.”
A Larger Debate About Free Speech
Ultimately, Penn’s statements and the polarized reactions to them reveal a deeper American dilemma. On one hand, democracy depends on debate, tolerance, and recognition of opposing views. On the other hand, not every position can—or should—be normalized, particularly when it undermines the humanity of marginalized groups.
Moreover, the controversy illustrates how celebrity voices can amplify conversations about morality and accountability in public life. While some applauded Penn’s call for compromise, others argued that his framing risks equating hate with legitimate debate. Therefore, the central question remains: can society distinguish between respecting conviction and legitimizing harm?
