The assassination of U.S. political commentator Charlie Kirk sparked widespread discussion and elicited polarized reactions worldwide, raising questions about the nature of the information Canadians were exposed to and how such information affected public understanding and social cohesion.

In this update, we aim to explore how polarized the conversation was following Kirk’s death by identifying the most popular claims made following his assassination and evaluating the extent these claims were agreed with (supported), disagreed with (refuted) or its themes discussed (other).

The assassination of Charlie Kirk triggered a vast social media discussion both in the United States and internationally. As the U.S.’s polarized context appears to increasingly shape political debates abroad, this event provides a window into how online conversations unfold after instances of political violence, shedding light on both the transformation of existing tensions and the emergence of new ones.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination, an act of political violence, intensified national debate about polarization and free speech. We examine public attitudes towards political violence, assessing whether the incident and ensuing debates are perceived by Canadians as a shared concern or a uniquely American issue.