ANALYSIS: Violent Ideology as Oppressed and Protected Class in the Killing of Charlie Kirk

As the legal proceedings get underway for the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk, Americans should pay close attention to the legal arguments offered by the defense. The arguments made could set legal precedent that would have unintended consequences—and could let a killer walk free.

In the April 17 pretrial hearing in State of Utah v Tyler James Robinson, a social psychologist named Bryan Edelman was asked to advise the court as to whether allowing media coverage of the trial proceedings would be prejudicial to the defense.
 
Edelman provided an overview of legal concepts such as the "megaphone factor." Americans would be well advised to listen to the testimony.

Check out how the defense in the Charlie Kirk murder trial is attempting to deny media coverage. Apparently "out-groups" like transgender individuals and Democrats (?!) are potential victims of bias? pic.twitter.com/kcRM4lxd6r

— jeffery reynolds (@ChargerJeff) April 23, 2026

The defense signaled its probable strategy when it made the argument that the court should bar media coverage of the trial. The implications could spread far beyond just this trial. 

How the Defense May Unfold

The American legal system is unusual in the stringency of its protections for those accused of crime, not least being the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. All those accused, including Tyler Robinson, enjoy these protections under our Constitution.
 
But many Americans may not realize the extent, and arcaneness, of some of these protections, particularly involving what is considered "prejudicial" under evidentiary rules. When the court deems media coverage prejudicial (a topic of today's hearing), it can lead to jury sequestration or a change of trial venue. And when the court deems evidence itself prejudicial, it can strike that evidence from the record. In some cases this can include even very strong evidence, such as a defendant's prior admission of guilt. 
 
None of this is new, or necessarily bad. 
 
However, Edelman suggested that the Kirk assassination trial defense will invoke a touchy aspect of this constitutional protection, concerning the "transgender" issue.

Edelman suggested that the defense may be headed in this direction:

There’s inflammatory language in [the media] that also creates in-group/out-group identification….Which creates more danger—the perception that members of that group—of that out-group—are dangerous….We tend to attribute stereotypes of how those people behave that are more likely to impact how we see them. You’re less likely to have empathy for members of the out-group when group salience is high.

Later, he said:

Inflammatory remarks [by public figures] create a perception that outgroups or members of the outgroup are dangerous.

In light of recent Supreme Court rulings on the "transgender" issue, Edelman's reference to "out-groups" is likely aimed at Robinson's possible connections to "trans" ideology, even though Edelman's comments referred more immediately to general remarks by the President about "crazy leftists" as a "radical group of lunatics."

Terrorism, or Transgenderism?

There's no doubt that the more general issue of terrorism is likely to be a subject of this trial, given bullet inscriptions of a type known historically to be used to convey terroristic intent, and specifically in this case the three downward arrows of Weimar era socialism, now frequently associated with Antifa.

We should expect legal arguments about whether Robinson's alleged actions constitute terrorism, and to what extent that can or should be deliberated by the jury.

But Edelman’s comments hint at a more specific, and more disturbing, direction where the legal battle could head: Robinson’s discoverable communications with his significant other, and the potential for “trans” and “furry” ideology—particularly at the butt of a gun, but also insofar as the defense is willing to conflate it with Democrat Party affiliation—to be portrayed as an oppressed “out-group” identity worthy of legal protections that we normally reserve for race, sex, and religion.

To put it more bluntly: This trial will examine whether an identitarian movement that seeks, and in some cases achieves, near totalitarian control over what people are allowed to say at work, at school, or to their children, should continue to merit kid-glove treatment in media and in court—even going so far as to call (leftist) political affiliation an imperiled out-group. 
 
The "trans" industry frequently asserts that its pseudoscientific claims genuinely merit such treatment. Indeed, the industry has frequently gotten such treatment, although high courts are beginning to regret their part in it, as reflected by the recent Supreme Court decision in the U.S. v Skrmetti decision:

[T]here is no evidence that transgender individuals, like racial minorities and women, have been excluded from participation in the political process….[D]espite the small size of the transgender population, the members of this group have had notable success in convincing many lawmakers to address their problems. *** The parties in this case also admit that transgender status is not an immutable characteristic….Instead, a person's gender identity may "shif[t]," and a person who is transgender now may not be transgender later.***Moreover, transgender status, unlike race and sex, is often not accompanied by visibly identifiable characteristics. A person's "gender identity" is an "internal sense[]"…. [Its] definition encompasses…not just biological men who permanently identify as women and biological women who permanently identify as men, but also individuals who might identify with a particular gender at a particular point in time and individuals who identify permanently or temporarily with both sexes, neither sex, or some other identity…. We have previously refused to apply a higher level of scrutiny to such "amorphous" classes for good practical reasons….Since such classes are not rigidly defined, it is hard to pin down whether they share the relevant characteristics that make closer scrutiny warranted. And it is difficult for both courts and legislatures to identify the outer bounds of such groups.

—Justice Alito, Concurring with the Majority

But we know from history that the industry will only position itself more stridently in response. The intrusion of objective reality into the courtroom presents an existential threat to a pseudoscience that has been allowed to percolate through and pervade US constitutional jurisprudence from the outset, and that should never been allowed to so percolate, given the ease with which its claims—even when made by its best so-called experts—can be shown to utterly lack any factual or scientific basis.

As the kids say, "it's on." And it will likely be ugly.

This is what we get for kidding ourselves that it was polite to go along with the lies.

Can We Unring the Bell?

Ever since obviously false "gender" claims came on the scene, the sadists promoting it have drawn power from the thrill of lying with impunity. Daring us to observe reality, and threatening us with social consequences and worse if we don't play along.

So, as a society, we played along.

We told ourselves it couldn't possibly hurt anything to just use a few made-up pronouns. And, once engaged in the fraud, we then played along with the wholesale rearrangement of our language, sometimes taking part in the lies ourselves.

We went along with the yard signs, kidding ourselves that giving fraud a pass was "kind." Though anyone older than three knows there's nothing kind about lies. "Kindness" was just an excuse to avoid admitting we were afraid.

Nothing illustrates more than the Kirk assassination that there is reason to be afraid.

But that violence was enabled by more than a decade of societal-level acquiescence and outright lying. The stakes weren't always this high.

Unintended Precedent

There was little to no risk back when Alliance Defending Freedom made the decision, in 2010s bathroom and employment cases, not to challenge bogus "gender" scientific claims, insisting that religious-exemption laws were sufficient for legal victory, without risking the public backlash of calling high courts’ attention to the claims’ lack of scientific basis. Sadly, in pursuit of what they hoped would be an easy religious-exemption win on summary judgment, ADF went so far as to cede, "[T]here is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.", a requirement for any party seeking summary judgment. But, unfortunately, in the particulars of the case that would become the precedent-setting Bostock ruling, this concession amounted to ADF ceding that Anthony Stephens had actually become a woman when he changed his name to Aimee and demanded to wear a dress at work. 

For its cowardice, ADF didn't even win the summary judgment. It just ramped up the speed with which high court rulings became peppered with circularly defined neologisms and nonfactual presuppositions.

High courts can only decide based on the facts argued before them. When those charged with arguing the facts choose not to do so, we get court rulings based on something other than facts.

And all because people were afraid of being called names. Back when all it would have taken to end industrialized medical malpractice in the name of "gender" was to risk being called a few names.

So we didn't say "no" when it was easy, and now it's become harder.

Now, President Trump has a point; the cards are indeed held by "crazy leftists."

Now, high  court rulings regularly refer to "transgender people" as though that make-believe entity were a real thing—even when pointing out, as Justice Alito did, that the concept's own proponents admit that the language they use to promote this idea has no real meaning.

Now, this coercive and sometimes violent movement clothes itself in the garment of victimhood, with even high court dissenters like Justice Alito hedging their dissent with apotropaics like "transgender persons have undoubtedly experienced discrimination," even while acknowledging that this group constitutes no objective or definable category.

Now, we have Utah's Republican governor agreeing that the significant other of the suspect in one of the country's most gruesome and terroristic political assassinations is "in the process of transitioning."

Because no litigant has ever demanded that a court answer the question: Where do the targets of "gender" interventions "transition" to, precisely?

To malpractice victimhood?

To extremism in which the victim becomes the predator? Using political violence to terrify the public into surrendering its right to prove the lie wrong (to borrow Kirk's phrase)? Using political violence to protect the malpractice industry's access to further, and younger, victims; by teaching the ambitious and unethical that this violent lie has utility beyond mere profit?

We know full well where that violence will go if allowed. As Theodore Dalrymple said in a 2005 interview with Frontpage Magazine:

[T]he purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. [Emphasis added.]

Make no mistake: The Robinson trial will be an examination of just how far that violence will be allowed to go.

We, the people, are not an impartial jury. We have to live in the real world and face its dilemmas. We had better answer questions more directly than the courts have been willing to:

Will we keep debasing our language, treating fake words as though they describe real things?

Will we keep giving lip service to lies, sending a message to violent liars that their tactics work?

Or will we finally say "no"?

It's time to choose, America.

WE ARE CHARLIE

  Carrying on the Legacy: 'The Charlie Effect': How Kirk's Fallen Torch Sparked a Global Revival

  Make America Normal Again: Dear America: Holding Normal Opinions Does Not Make One a Fascist

  Religion of Peace: The Religion of Militant Secularism Killed Charlie Kirk

We need your help to save America—chip in today.

Restoration News, a project of Restoration of America, is your trusted investigative news source for the America First movement. As a rapidly growing conservative news site, we focus on delivering accurate and insightful exposés on political news, immigration news, leftist lies, and other pressing issues affecting everyday Americans. Our uncompromising commitment to a hard-hitting, fact-based, America First, and faithful perspective ensures that you receive news that aligns with your values. 

Every dollar gets us closer to winning the war on woke