A website that claimed to track people “celebrating” the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has abruptly disappeared, leaving behind a trail of harassment, firings, and legal threats.

The site, originally launched as CharliesMurderers.com, published names, photos, and personal information of individuals who posted critical or unsympathetic remarks after Kirk was shot and killed on Sept. 10 at Utah Valley University. Its creators described it as “a searchable database of 20,000 people celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder.”

Civil rights experts say the site crossed into dangerous territory, potentially breaking anti-doxxing laws, while fueling a wave of online abuse.

How the website fueled harassment

Within hours of its launch, CharliesMurderers.com became a focal point for right-wing retaliation. Those listed said they were deluged with threats, including death threats, rape threats, and promises of armed violence.

• Rachel Gilmore, a Canadian journalist, landed at the top of the site for warning that Kirk’s killing could radicalize his followers. She says she received “death threats, rape threats, and people claimed to know where I live.”
• Hannah Molitor, a Milwaukee childcare worker, was fired after her Facebook post criticizing Kirk’s stance on gun control was spotlighted. Her personal information was leaked, and she says she was sent photos of guns along with threats that extremists would “show up” at her home.

Both women stress that they never celebrated Kirk’s death. “I would never wish death upon anyone,” Molitor said. “No one deserves to be killed, especially in such a horrific way.”

Echoes of Turning Point USA tactics

Kirk himself, despite previously defending “ugly, gross, and evil” speech as protected under the First Amendment, was no stranger to naming and shaming opponents. His organization Turning Point USA runs a controversial Professor Watchlist, which highlights academics accused of pushing liberal bias.

Critics say CharliesMurderers.com adopted this same playbook but on a far more invasive and reckless scale, potentially exposing ordinary people to employment consequences, targeted harassment, and violence.

Legal and constitutional questions

Civil rights attorneys argue the site may have crossed several legal lines:

• Defamation: By labeling critics as “murderers,” the site could be seen as making false, reputation-damaging claims.
• Anti-doxxing laws: Several states have enacted laws prohibiting the publication of personal data with intent to harass.
• Employment law: Workers fired after being listed could pursue wrongful termination or discrimination cases, depending on the circumstances.

“Many of the people listed … may have viable defamation claims,” said civil rights lawyer J. Alejandro Barrientos, noting that many posts “only quoted Kirk’s own words.”

From database to “data foundation”, then silence

On Sept. 15, the anonymous organizers announced they were “rebranding” as the Charlie Kirk Data Foundation, switching to a new domain. The revamped site claimed to collect “lawfully available public data” but offered no searchable database. Within days, that site also vanished.

The sudden retreat suggests the operators may have feared liability and lawsuits, according to Barrientos. But for those already targeted, the damage lingers.

Political fallout and free speech debate

The controversy comes as the Trump administration navigates its response to Kirk’s assassination. Attorney General Pam Bondi floated the idea of prosecuting “hate speech,” drawing pushback even from Trump supporters. Vice President J.D. Vance, meanwhile, has endorsed campaigns to pressure employers of Kirk critics.

Civil liberties advocates warn that this climate undermines free expression. Nora Benavidez of Free Press called the website “dangerous” and part of a broader effort to silence dissent through intimidation.

“We are witnessing a chilling attempt to silence free speech,” she said. “The ‘free speech for me but not for thee’ attitude Trump embodies is dangerous, divisive, and creates the conditions for political violence.”

The damage remains

Though website is now offline, many of those listed say they remain fearful. Molitor has launched a GoFundMe campaign to fund legal action, while Gilmore has not ruled out suing.

“You can’t just paint people as a murderer … and have zero accountability,” Gilmore said. “Could someone still be planning retribution? That’s the thought that keeps me up at night.”