At the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, senators look for ways to end political violence

Two months after the assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University, Utah Sen. John Curtis and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly sat down on the other side of campus to confront the nation’s epidemic of political violence and to chart a course toward potential solutions.

The senators spoke at a public event on Wednesday, hosted by UVU’s Gary R. Herbert Institute for Public Policy and moderated by CNN political correspondent Dana Bash, in an attempt to build something positive from the tragedy of Sept. 10, when a gunman shot Kirk before thousands of students.

Early details from the investigation revealed that Kirk’s alleged killer had been “engulfed” by “a radical left ideology,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox previously told the Deseret News. The FBI has also suggested that the killer was radicalized by time spent online in obscure social media forums.

Curtis framed Wednesday’s discussion as a way to bring “healing” to the Utah community that witnessed the death of Kirk, who was one of the most influential conservative activists in the country as the founder of the student outreach organization Turning Point USA.

Kelly expressed hope the conversation would be the start of moving America’s political environment “back in a better direction” by showcasing how to engage with ideological opponents — a quality Kelly said he admired in Kirk, his former constituent, who based his operations out of Arizona.

“I did not agree with him on much. But I’ll tell you what, I will go to war to fight for his right to say what he believes,” said Kelly, who is a former Navy pilot. “Even if you disagree with somebody, doesn’t mean you put a wall up between you and them.”

Kelly spoke from a place of intimate experience. In 2011, his wife, Gabby Giffords — then a member of the U.S. House representing Arizona’s 8th Congressional District — suffered a severe brain injury when she was shot in the head during an assassination attempt at an event with constituents.

Since that time, political polarization and extremism have only gotten worse, with social media partially to blame, and with leaders like President Donald Trump pouring gasoline on the flames, according to Kelly, who said Trump consistently tries to “drive a wedge between the American people.”

While Curtis acknowledged Trump’s polarizing approach to politics, he pushed back on Kelly, saying that former President Joe Biden stoked similar divisions, and that those most vehemently against Trump often unwittingly become “Trump-like in their hate of President Trump.”

But this moment of political violence won’t be solved by pointing the finger at social media, or at Trump, or at anyone else, according to Curtis. When criticizing what the algorithm produces, or which candidates are successful in elections, it is just as important, Curtis said, to hold up a mirror.

“This is a moment for a little self-reflection,” Curtis said. “I do think that this is more a reflection, right, of who we are as a country than we are willing, sometimes, to admit.”

Is social media to blame for violence?

The senators also used their bipartisan panel on Wednesday to announce plans to hold social media companies accountable for the type of harmful content promoted around the assassination of Kirk, which they say leads to political violence.

During their televised discussion, Curtis and Kelly previewed a bill they intend to introduce shortly that would remove liability protection for social media companies that boost content that contributes to political radicalization and violence.

The “Algorithm Accountability Act” would transform one of the pillars of internet governance by reforming a 30-year-old regulation known as Section 230 that gives online platforms legal immunity for content posted by their users.

“What we’re saying is this is creating an environment that is causing all sorts of harm in our society and particularly with our youth, and it needs to be addressed,” Curtis told the Deseret News.

The bill would strip Section 230 protections from companies if it can be proven in court that they used an algorithm to amplify content that caused harm. This change means tech giants would “own” the harmful content they promote, creating a private cause of action for individuals to sue.

Section 230 was passed in 1996, before the existence of social media and AI algorithms, Curtis pointed out. What this bill would do, Curtis explained, is open up these trillion-dollar companies to the same kind of liability that tobacco companies and other industries face.

“If they’re responsible for something going out that caused harm, they are responsible. So think twice before you magnify. Why do these things need to be magnified at all?” Curtis said.

Censorship or accountability?

Curtis acknowledged that his new proposal will have its fair share of enemies. Tech companies “aren’t super excited about it,” Curtis said, because they rely on social media algorithms to drive engagement — and engagement is often highest with controversial content.

But these companies have long known their formula for keeping eyeballs on screens is harmful to mental health and, occasionally, to physical safety, according to Curtis. The solution proposed on Wednesday is to create an economic incentive not to promote the most toxic content.

Curtis said it is wrong to label his bill as an infringement on the right to freedom of speech. Companies could still host whatever content their users post without censorship, Curtis said. But if platforms decide to incorporate harmful content into their algorithm for clicks, they can be sued.

This could impact the livelihood of social media influencers who have constructed a business model of gaming the algorithm with outrage-inducing rhetoric by making it harder for their posts to go viral. For these individuals Curtis has a message: tough luck.

“If you’re one of those influencers that you’re talking about, and they’re upset because somebody can’t promote their content because it causes harm, maybe they need to rethink what they do for a living,” Curtis said.

In the final hours of the longest federal government budget stalemate in history, Kelly predicted that the Algorithm Accountability Act will get “pretty broad bipartisan support” because there is widespread recognition that social media is one of the greatest threats to young people.

Does civil leadership matter?

Before the event, UVU President Astrid Tuminez told the Deseret News that by showing students what it looks like for leaders to disagree productively the university can help students understand that they can have differing opinions without holding each other in contempt.

One UVU student, William Burns, who said he witnessed the assassination of Kirk close up, chose to attend the event because he believes Kirk’s legacy for his generation is that more debate, not less, is the healthiest way for society to overcome differences.

While the experience on Sept. 10 was certainly traumatic for Burns, he said that Kirk’s death has actually emboldened him and his peers to communicate more loudly what they believe with others, in a way that he thinks has had a positive impact.

“Whether you agree with him completely or not, I still think debating, and, having a little bit of fun talking about things you disagree with is good,” Burns said. “It’s an awful thing that happened. But like, I think we’re turning it into the best outcome we can.”

Kirk was known for his blunt, viral encounters with young progressives. But he also showcased an ability to put down the mic, and listen to other viewpoints in order to understand and persuade, not insult, according to Disagree Better executive director Marianne Viray.

Disagree Better, a nonprofit based on Cox’s initiative as National Governors Association chair, co-sponsored Wednesday’s event to further its mission of changing the culture by modeling how leaders can elevate civil dialogue, Viray told the Deseret News.

A Stanford study of Cox’s Disagree Better campaign found that participants who viewed the ads with bipartisan pairings of elected officials experienced a marked decrease in partisan animosity based on exaggerated perceptions of others — which is directly correlated with political violence, Viray said.

“Our democracy was founded on principles of ... working to find the best solutions for all, and that involves sitting at the table with your ideological rivals,” Viray said. “Framing any ideology in terms of defeating or eradicating the other ... takes us outside the container that our Constitution has created for differences of opinions to coexist.”

In an interview with the Deseret News, Riverton Mayor Trent Staggs said Utah can lead out in countering political violence by embracing Kirk’s bold style of debate that identified the political left as the source of most violent tactics, and that sought to discredit liberal ideas.

This was the approach Staggs said he highlighted in his Senate bid against Curtis in 2024, where he was endorsed by Turning point, and in his recently published book, “Heirs of the Revolution: Our Civic Duty to Restore Our Republic” — which was also endorsed by Kirk.

Leadership is important, but Staggs said it is regular Utahns, not the Washington, D.C., elite, that should spearhead efforts to articulate conservative principles, eliminate obstacles to free expression and continue the battle that Kirk died fighting — right in the middle of the Beehive State.

“We need more discussion, not less,” Staggs said. “That’s what Turning Point was all about — creating an environment where young minds and conservatives could look at opposing viewpoints, have debate, that’s what we need to do, we need more of that."