Yeah, they love umbrella terms, like terrorism that designated Palestine Action, and the bourgeoisie love stealing from the working class too much to bother with organizations asking them to stop in the name of justice.

Seems unlikely that we’ll see people defending themselves from being anti-fascists though, we’ll see how they’ll spin that one.

It’s already illegal to attempt murdering someone, or to call to h.er.is murder, but as usual the problem is that ‘the future murderers aren’t scared’/‘we’re not harsh/authoritarian’ enough.

What could they do to prevent the next Charlie Kirk from being killed ?
If he was killed solely for his transphobia, then they can either censor anti or pro trans opinions, which would solve the tensions.
The european union(, or at least France, Germany, …,) chose to censor anti-trans opinions, and the u.s.a. would have difficulties to censor pro-trans opinions(, with millions of americans already identifying as trans), so perhaps that if they love censorship so much then it can only go in the direction of censoring those opposing trans rights.
Since it’s the republican party, they could/would also nuance that interdiction by forbidding pro-trans “propaganda” in public schools and stuff.

What would happen if the situation was reversed, i.e. if a government pro-trans had one of its top propagandists killed by someone anti-trans ?
I guess that the most expected answer would be to use that event in order to pass pro-trans legislation, while increasing its propaganda.
That’s the principle behind false flags, even authentic suicide bombings lead to a reaction ‘opposite to what the killer’/‘identical to what the government’ wanted.
In this case though, it’d be difficult as previously stated, and it’s probably not only about transphobia, since there’s Luigi Mangione, attempts on D.Trump, threats to E.Musk and others.

My answer would be to avoid mass surveillance and censorship, because that’s what the terrorists want according to our lies.
Instead of censoring the extremists, give their representatives a platform on television where they’re destroyed by the truth, with enough time to prepare their arguments while knowing in advance the questions, and against someone ready to make concessions, and all the time in the world to discuss, it’s a pity that political opponents only “talk” with each other once in a while on t.v. instead of constantly hanging out until they exhausted what they had to bring to each other[1], that’s not how it should work, in many ways.
A website that’d expose the multiple point of views(, in multiple forms,) is also long overdue, wikipedia sucks to learn about a subject and there’s no real alternative(, even l.l.m.s), but that won’t be considered a serious solution.
Banning leftist zones of the internet may work since democrats are also anti-communists so won’t be at risk of censoring the republicans in return. I’m actually surprised it didn’t already happened long ago, but i guess that the bourgeoisie’s ownership of the medias was already enough, and it’s only now that Internet changes the old rules.
But yeah, if the real problem is the spread of anti-capitalism in the american youth, then Internet still doesn’t feel mature enough yet to find some kind of relatively common truth through debates, but at least do it orally on t.v., after many hours/days/weeks in private(, or not privately but on twitch/rumble/youtube/…,) until a change of view is reached, and without choosing the worst representatives of the left. It won’t happen but that’s how it should be, such that people like Charlie Kirk would have been forced to change their mind(, i.m.o.,) after a long-enough discussion.
Either more discussions or less, i suppose.

[1] : Debates could also lead to predictions of results from a local economic experiment, helping to settle the dispute in this regard.
When it can be applied, a law should also be accompanied by a prediction of its results, cancelling it if its results are below a certain threshold(, e.g. aid to companies in exchange for jobs, safety laws in exchange for a diminution of the casualities, …). It’d give further meaning to the already existing assessment of a policy, being clearer about our objectives.
I’m not sure if it was the book “on socialism”, but a book by John Stuart Mill has him discussing ideas from Louis Blanc, and concluding that we just have to conduct experiments, i loved that conclusion and make it mine, some bourgeois do care about the common good more than their own, and are ready to see what’d benefit the most people. Others don’t and everyone thought they won in the recent decades.