A new website could expose the details of 50,000 people who are ‘celebrating’ the death of Charlie Kirk.
In the wake of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Utah Valley University, a controversial website has emerged threatening to expose the personal information of over 50,000 people accused of ‘celebrating’ his death on social media.
Charlie Kirk, co-founder of Turning Point USA, was shot dead while answering questions about gun violence at Utah Valley University.
A 22-year-old student named Tyler Robinson was arrested 33 hours after the killing, with authorities recovering a weapon containing political messages and slogans written on bullets and casings.
The assassination sparked widespread reaction across social media platforms, with users sharing varied responses to Kirk’s death – from expressions of sympathy to criticism of his controversial political stances.
An anonymous website called ‘Expose Charlie’s Murderers’ has been collecting screenshots and personal information of social media users who allegedly made celebratory or negative comments about Kirk’s death.
The site claims to have received over 30,000 submissions and aims to create a searchable database organized by location and industry.
The website’s stated purpose is clear: “Is an employee or a student of yours supporting political violence online? Look them up on this website.”
Despite claiming it’s not for ‘doxxing purposes,’ the site publishes names, employers, locations, and alleged comments of targeted individuals.
Security experts describe the effort as a coordinated harassment campaign. Laura Edelson, assistant professor at Northeastern University and director of the Cybersecurity for Democracy Project, stated per CNN: “That’s absolutely why it exists, to coordinate and target the harassment toward the selected individuals.”
The campaign extends beyond the anonymous website. Prominent far-right influencer Laura Loomer publicly threatened to make ‘everyone I find online who celebrates his death Famous,’ warning that their ‘whole future professional aspirations’ would be ruined.
Vice President JD Vance has endorsed the campaign, guest-hosting Kirk’s radio show and declaring, per the BBC: “Call them out, and hell, call their employer. We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility.”
Republican lawmakers have echoed these calls. Florida Congressman Randy Fine demanded ‘firing, defunding, and license revocation’ for those celebrating Kirk’s death, while South Carolina’s Nancy Mace urged the Department of Education to cut funding from schools that don’t retaliate against employees making insensitive posts.
The campaign has resulted in numerous firings across various industries. Among government employees, Secret Service agent Anthony Pough had his security clearance revoked after posting that Kirk ‘spewed hate and racism,’ while multiple university employees, including professors at Clemson University and Middle Tennessee State University, have been dismissed or suspended.
Public school teachers in several states have also lost their positions.
In the private sector, Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah was allegedly fired for her social media posts, MSNBC fired political analyst Matthew Dowd for on-air comments, and employees at major airlines, including Delta, American, and United, have all been terminated.
Office Depot, Freddy’s Frozen Custard, and the Carolina Panthers have also dismissed employees over their social media activity. DC Comics even canceled a comic book series after its author made comments about Kirk’s death.
The firings raise significant questions about free speech and employee protections.
While private companies generally have broad discretion to terminate employees under ‘at-will’ contracts, critics argue the campaign threatens fundamental rights. Risa Lieberwitz, head of the Worker Institute at Cornell University, warned that public figures calling for accountability over social media posts could infringe on free speech rights.
She described the situation as reflecting ‘the kind of fear that exists now in the United States from retaliation by the Trump administration.’
Analysis of the targeted posts reveals a wide spectrum of responses, from clearly inappropriate celebrations to simple observations about political violence or criticism of Kirk’s past statements.
Many posts don’t appear to celebrate violence at all, instead referencing Kirk’s pro-Second Amendment stance or noting the continuation of daily life.
This broad targeting has led to harassment of individuals who explicitly stated they hoped Kirk would survive, demonstrating how the campaign extends beyond its stated purpose.
Whitney Phillips, assistant professor at the University of Oregon, explains that the campaign creates ‘a false culture war framing’ by designating critics as ‘a downright spiritual enemy of conservatives, and by extension, of America itself.’
The website’s very name implies that those listed are responsible for Kirk’s murder, despite having no connection to the actual shooter, creating a foundation for harassment and potential violence against the targeted individuals.
As of recent reports, the original website has been taken down by its host, though organizers claim to have rebranded as the ‘Charlie Kirk Data Foundation.’
