OREM, Utah — The courtyard at Utah Valley University was once a popular gathering place, where students ate, studied and rested on the grass. A year after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was killed there, the space remains noticeably quieter. Collin Grannis, a recent graduate, said students now associate the terraced courtyard with the shooting and largely avoid it. Kirk, the co-founder and then-leader of Turning Point USA, was killed while speaking to a large campus audience and debating a student with progressive views. His death triggered a national backlash aimed not only at prominent political figures, but also at ordinary people who posted criticism or expressed satisfaction at his death. Online groups and websites solicited names, photographs, employers and social media accounts of people accused of celebrating Kirk’s killing. One site described its effort as a mass firing campaign and urged visitors to report people whose posts were viewed as supportive of political violence. Shauna Dillavou, chief executive of the doxing-prevention service Brightlines, said the episode marked a major shift in how personal information was weaponized. Doxing—the publication of identifying information without a person’s consent—had previously been associated with extremist networks, online subcultures and high-profile social media accounts. After Kirk’s death, Dillavou said, neighbors, friends and members of private group chats became sources of targets and accusations. The consequences can include job loss, lawsuits, death threats and forced moves, she said. The threats also reached people who had never expected to become politically visible online. Vice President JD Vance intensified the pressure in the days after the killing when he hosted Kirk’s podcast from the White House. Vance told listeners to confront people celebrating Kirk’s death and added that they should contact those people’s employers. He said the effort was about civility and opposition to political violence. Shannon Hiller, executive director of Princeton University’s Bridging Divides Initiative, said the participation of a senior government official created a powerful new dynamic around the online targeting. Dillavou characterized doxing as a form of stochastic terrorism, arguing that publicizing a person’s address, phone number or other information can encourage someone else to act against them. The tactics were not entirely new. Turning Point USA had for years operated a “Professor Watchlist,” which encouraged students to report professors accused of promoting left-wing views. But researchers and advocates said the post-Kirk campaign was broader and faster, with calls for action circulating through political networks and private online communities. The most prominent site eventually went offline, although copies and mirrors continued to circulate. Kat Green, who leads the doxing-mitigation nonprofit Endora, said legal pushback helped slow the campaign. Online users also overwhelmed efforts to identify targets by flooding the internet with memes and absurdist content about Kirk, she said. The episode has renewed debate over the difference between documenting dangerous conduct and exposing private information to an angry crowd. Dillavou said there can be a case for identifying people involved in violent or openly extremist organizations, but warned that normalizing doxing ultimately leaves everyone more vulnerable. Hiller said Americans have not had a sustained public conversation about when, if ever, posting an opponent’s personal information is justified. Digital platforms make it easier to mobilize strangers against a target than to address a disagreement directly, she said. That tension remains visible on the Utah campus. Kevin Haslem, a sophomore, said professors appeared guarded as the first anniversary approached because even mentioning Kirk’s name could provoke intense emotions. The memorial site’s continuing influence suggests that the effects of the killing are not limited to the physical space where it occurred. The harder question, researchers say, is whether neighbor-to-neighbor political targeting will remain a permanent feature of American civic life—or whether communities can rebuild enough trust to challenge one another without turning disagreement into a threat.