Political Violence: The case of Charlie Kirk & Lessons from South Korea

This voices piece looks at the proliferation and desensitisation of political violence, threats to democracy, and the impact of media. This article was written by Kurt Micallef and Chanseung Kim, and edited by Frankie Finch.

---

Re-Humanising Politics: Political Violence, Civility, and the Case of Charlie Kirk

Introduction

Political violence has long been employed by those who believe that the ends justify the means, so long as those ends are their own. Democracy, by contrast, rests on the conviction that disagreement must be resolved through dialogue rather than coercion. The principle of free expression was never designed to protect popular opinions, but to safeguard the unpopular and controversial ones, and to ensure that individuals may voice dissent without fear of harm or exclusion. The political culture a democracy seeks to preserve is one of open debate, where opposing views can be exchanged with respect. When this balance erodes and violence becomes a tool of political expression, it strikes at the core of democratic life and ripples outward through social media. This in turn risks fermenting a culture of hate and hostility in which individuals with differing political views are no longer seen as family, friends, or simply human beings deserving of dignity, but as adversaries to be silenced.

Today, political divisions appear deeper than at any point in recent memory with opposing camps increasingly convinced that they inhabit irreconcilable worldviews. Each new act of political violence seems to confirm this divide. In the United States, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump at a Pennsylvania rally in 2024 underscored how even the most prominent figures aren't insulated from politically motivated aggression. Only months later, the killing of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk provoked both outrage and even celebration from some corners of social media. Across the Atlantic, the 2025 Manchester synagogue attack demonstrated how extremist ideologies can transform places of worship into sites of terror. Rioters in Rotherham also attempted to set fire to an asylum-seeker hotel, thus illustrating how acts of political violence are amplifying, regardless of motivation or ideological leanings. These events, though distinct in context and cause, reveal a shared erosion of empathy and restraint; for many, the first instinct is no longer to condemn violence, but to rationalise or even celebrate it when directed at ideological opponents. Such reactions signal a dangerous shift in political culture, one where the moral boundary separating disagreement from dehumanisation grows ever thinner.

The Proliferation and Desensitisation of Political Violence

Desensitisation has amplified this growing apathy towards violence. Studies have long shown that repeated exposure to violent content can dull emotional responses and normalise aggression, particularly among young audiences. In a 2024 study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers simulated the viewing patterns of children on a major video-sharing platform and analysed 2,880 recommended video thumbnails. The findings were striking: 40.6% contained depictions of peril, violence or pranks while another 44.6% featured disturbing imagery. This is evidence of how easily violent or sensationalist material is encountered even without the user's intent. Such findings highlight how contemporary social-media algorithms and trends routinely expose users to violent visuals, gradually eroding sensitivity to harm and suffering.

This dynamic was starkly evident following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. According to the New York Times, within minutes of the attack, clips of the killing spread across X, Instagram, Telegram, Threads and YouTube, collectively reaching over 11 million views within hours. Countless people opened their feeds to find the video auto playing, graphic and unfiltered. Many online reactions celebrated or rationalised the violence. Yet for countless others, the experience of seeing such brutality unfold on their screens provoked shock and a deep sense of unease. Ordinary people across the political spectrum were suddenly confronted with the realisation that the victim was not a politician or an elected official, but a private citizen whose offence was expressing unpopular views. 

This instilled a broader awareness in many that such horrific political violence no longer confines itself to elected officials but can extend to anyone who participates in political discourse. In this context, the convergence of polarisation, desensitisation, and the instantaneous circulation of violent imagery online blurs the line between political disagreement and personal insecurity. Rather than being perceived as isolated acts, such events now contribute to a persistent sense of vulnerability that permeates everyday political engagement. 

The assassination of Charlie Kirk and the viral circulation of his killing mark a grim juncture in the relationship between violence, media, and politics. It illustrated not only how rapidly violent imagery now permeates the digital public sphere, but also how emotional detachment and partisan hostility shape the reactions to it. What might once have been a moment of collective condemnation became instead a fragmented moral response, in which sympathy, indifference, and celebration coexisted within the same online spaces. The speed and scale of this reaction reveal that the boundaries separating political life, entertainment, and violence have become dangerously porous.

Threats to Democracy Imposed by Political Violence

Looking ahead, such incidents suggest a troubling trajectory for democratic societies. When exposure to violence becomes routine, the threshold for moral shock diminishes, eroding a shared sense of what constitutes acceptable political behaviour. Over time, this risks normalising not only violent imagery but also the logic that underpins it, the notion that political opponents are enemies to be punished rather than citizens to be persuaded. In an era where algorithmic systems privilege engagement over restraint, these psychological processes may be reinforced at scale, fuelling cycles of outrage and retaliation that are difficult to reverse.

The political consequences of the recent wave of polarisation and acts of political violence could unfold along two parallel paths. The first is one of continuation and deepening division, in which each act of violence pushes opposing camps further apart and hardens their unwillingness to engage in dialogue. Recent survey research underscores the seriousness of this possibility. A 2022 nationally representative study of over 8,600 adults in the United States found that nearly one-third of respondents viewed violence as at least sometimes justified to advance political goals, and a small but significant proportion even anticipated personally taking part in such acts. The findings indicate that support for political violence, while still a minority position, is present across segments of the population and not limited to extremist movements or isolated individuals. In such a climate, political disagreement risks becoming synonymous with moral enmity, leaving little space for compromise or mutual understanding. 

The second, more hopeful path is one of collective reflection. Confronted with the senselessness of these attacks, societies may begin to pause and ask how political discourse reached such an extreme point. This moment of reckoning could encourage communities across ideological lines to acknowledge a shared responsibility for restoring civility, fostering empathy and re-establishing the norms that allow disagreement to exist without hostility or fear.

An Undying Hope

Although the extremity of today’s political divisions has exposed the dangers of polarisation and the need for empathy, there still remains room for hope. The growing unwillingness, on both sides of the political spectrum, to look beyond partisan identities and ask, ‘where is this person coming from?’ has entrenched divides that cannot be bridged through debate alone. What is needed is not just dialogue but understanding: a recognition that behind every opinion lies a human being shaped by experiences, fears, and aspirations. If societies can rediscover this shared humanity, moments of crisis such as the killing of Charlie Kirk may yet serve as a catalyst for renewal rather than further fragmentation. Re-establishing empathy as a civic virtue is the surest means of resisting the descent into dehumanisation and of rebuilding a political culture in which disagreement is once again possible without hatred.

Political Violence in the Digital Age: Lessons from South Korea's Democratic Crisis

Introduction

Political violence today no longer unfolds solely in the streets or public squares. Anger, hatred, and disinformation now spread rapidly through digital spaces. Platform algorithms amplify polarised opinions, while political influencers harness public outrage for clicks and views. This new form of political mobilisation has become an invisible force that undermines the foundations of democracy.

Politics and violence have traditionally been understood as mutually connected. The sociologist Max Weber viewed the state as a political entity that claims the monopoly on legitimate violence, arguing that foundational violence lies at the root of state formation. Carl von Clausewitz, known for his theory of war, described warfare which is the most extreme expression of violence as a political act, a continuation of political negotiation by other means. From this perspective, political power involves the subjugation of certain groups by others with violence functioning as one of the tools available to maintain that subjugation.

However, the relationship between politics and violence has transformed up to the present. Violence is no longer limited to the state and spreads through digital technologies and networks. Political influence now relies less on physical force and more on shaping algorithms, which allows those in government to manipulate information and stir emotions. Violence now becomes not only a tool of power but also a structural condition that distorts public participation. In this sense, contemporary politics is less about restraining violence than about continually managing and reshaping the ways in which it operates.

Social Media and South Korean Unrest

The ‘Seoul Western District Court riot’ in 2025, triggered by the political turmoil following the declaration of martial law in South Korea in 2024, provides a striking example of this transformation. The incident occurred on 19 January 2025, when supporters of President Yoon Suk Yeol stormed the Seoul Western District Court in protest against his arrest and the subsequent judicial review for a detention warrant. After breaking through police lines, rioters smashed the court’s doors and windows, occupied the building, and hurled monitors, causing chaos inside. This unprecedented court assault was broadcast live in real time by radical-right YouTubers who also participated in the attack. The incident severely undermined South Korea’s hard-won democracy.

Observers have pointed to the political manoeuvring of influential politicians and the crisis being amplified for profit by YouTubers as key factors that fuelled the violence. Ruling-party politicians were criticised for making remarks that appeared to undermine judicial trust or tacitly encourage the attack. The live broadcast of this violence immediately drew comparisons to the events of 6 January 2021 in the United States. The storming of the US Capitol by far-right protesters marked a grim chapter in American democracy and reverberated across the world. It has often been cited as a case in which digital platforms acted as catalysts for political violence, vividly illustrating how the informational space of a democracy can be weaponised. Yet, social media has also been used to mobilise pro-democracy movements, as seen during the Arab Spring, when digital platforms enabled citizens to organise and demand political change. This contrast raises an important question: should the use of digital tools to challenge power be judged differently when it serves democratic aims, or should the same standards apply regardless of motivation? The polarisation resulting from such events continues to reveal the fragile balance between free expression, activism and the risks of online incitement.

Media-spurred Uprisings Elsewhere

Similar patterns have emerged elsewhere. In January 2023, supporters of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, defeated in the presidential election, stormed the country’s Congress, Supreme Court and presidential palace. The violence was fuelled in part by Bolsonaro’s repeated claims of electoral fraud, while misinformation spread rapidly online, playing a critical role in inciting the riots. These events echoed earlier instances where digital networks amplified political grievances and blurred the line between civic mobilisation and violent unrest. Around the world, such episodes of normalised political violence are heightening concern about the fragility of democratic institutions and the vulnerability of societies to information manipulation and emotional influence.

The riots witnessed in South Korea, along with comparable episodes in the United States and Brazil, share a fundamental similarity. They represent attempts to impose political will through force rather than accept the procedural outcomes of democracy. The US Capitol attack manifested distrust in electoral results, the Brazilian riots reflected a refusal to accept a transfer of power, and the South Korean assault challenged judicial decisions. In each case, political grievances that should have been addressed within institutional and legal frameworks were converted into street-level rage. When violence replaces democratic procedure, political conflict ceases to be a matter of negotiation and becomes an arena of enmity, rapidly undermining the normative foundations of democracy. Ultimately, such violence erodes social trust and undermines the legitimacy of institutions.

Challenges to Governance and Law posed by Social Media

Crucially, these developments illustrate how digital platforms can organise outrage and catalyse political violence. Unlike traditional forms of political violence, they reveal a new structure in which algorithms, platforms, and content creators interact to amplify unrest. Individual political anger is amplified by the algorithms of digital platforms, and political actors exploit this heightened sentiment as a strategic tool. In this process, violence no longer exists solely as physical confrontation. It operates as an invisible force that shakes society through the spread of emotion, the distortion of information, and the manipulation of public opinion. They also expose the structural vulnerabilities of democracies in the digital age. Democracy depends on citizens’ independent judgment and debate based on facts, yet today’s information environment prioritises emotion over truth and outrage over reasoned discussion. Algorithms fragment public discourse, reducing opportunities for citizens to encounter differing perspectives. This can steadily weaken the foundations of rational debate and mutual trust that are central to democratic life.

This challenge goes beyond the political crises of individual countries and has become a global concern. Digital platforms operate across borders, spreading political instability and inflammatory rhetoric in real time. The online mobilisation of violence is now a worldwide phenomenon, eroding the trust networks that sustain democracies. The international community faces the complex task of safeguarding freedom of expression while countering disinformation. This requires a rethinking of democratic norms and the establishment of new frameworks for digital governance that reflect the realities of the online sphere. Such frameworks need to go beyond voluntary measures to include enforceable standards for transparency, accountability and ethical conduct by technology companies. Developing these mechanisms will be essential to preserving democratic integrity and public trust in an increasingly digital world.

American political scientist Charles E. Merriam saw violence as a sign that politics has failed. Ideally, politics resolves social conflicts through discussion, negotiation, and persuasion. Violence appears when this mechanism breaks down. From this perspective, the mobilisation of political violence in digital spaces is not just a technological issue but a reflection of weakened political capacity. As public discourse becomes saturated with anger and hostility, the power of persuasion declines and societies turn to more extreme rhetoric and action, creating a vicious cycle that undermines democratic norms. Yet violence does not fill the void of politics. It destroys its very possibility. For democracy to reclaim its core in the digital age, human judgment must override algorithms, dialogue must prevail over incitement, and trust must outweigh anger. Rebuilding these principles in public discourse will require not only institutional reforms but also a renewal of civic ethics grounded in empathy and responsibility. The digital sphere must be reimagined as a space that fosters deliberation rather than division, participation rather than manipulation. Only then can politics recover its purpose as a means of bringing people together to solve shared problems and strengthen democracy against the forces that seek to divide it.