After far-right political commentator Charlie Kirk was killed, memorial actions by domestic entertainers have repeatedly become controversial. Views that it was simply mourning and criticism that it could be seen as endorsing a particular ideology have clashed.
Super Junior member Choi Si-won shared a photo of the deceased and a Bible verse on his social media on the 11th with the phrase REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK. However, he faced strong backlash after it became known that Charlie Kirk was a close associate of former President Trump and had been criticized for anti-LGBTQ and racist remarks.
Some fans defended him, saying it was "only mourning," but criticism that "mourning the death of a far-right figure is no different from sympathizing with that ideology" grew intense. In the end, he deleted the post and explained that he was mourning a tragic death regardless of political leanings.
Former Wonder Girls member Sunye also shared a memorial video for Charlie Kirk with a Bible verse on her social media on the 16th but soon deleted it. In addition, actors Jin Seo-yeon and Choi Jun-yong each left messages saying "my condolences to the deceased," and YouTuber Haejju liked a memorial post and later issued an apology.
The core of the controversy is the sincerity of the mourning and its ripple effects. Entertainers' actions can be expressions of religious belief or human mourning. But if the subject was a person who caused social conflict with hate speech, the actions of public figures are easily read as political messages beyond mere mourning.
Some internet users actually responded, "We should respect the feeling of mourning a tragic death itself" and "public figures can have personal faith and emotions." On the other hand, many voices said, "Couldn't they have known the person they were mourning was a far-right figure?" and "As public figures, they should at least consider the context and impact of their statements."
Mourning is a personal freedom, but because that freedom has great influence, it demands greater responsibility and scrutiny. Ultimately, are the statements of public figures a matter of personal freedom or subject to censorship for those who stand before the public? This controversy may ultimately conclude with the long-standing question of "the freedom and responsibility of public figures."
[Photo] OSEN DB
[OSEN]