Grand Theft Auto Online players have gone too far for the company’s tastes.
In case you’ve missed his widow’s unending spectacle, Charlie Kirk’s death continues to incite strong reactions.
Even far-right grifters have faced violence if they don’t discuss Kirk in exactly the right tone.
Some GTAO players were effectively reenacting the podcaster’s death, in-game. They’re getting into trouble over it.
‘Grand Theft Auto Online’ is cracking down on one specific form of player expression
In Grand Theft Auto Online, players can create custom missions for each other.
Sometimes, it’s to show off their creativity. Other times, it’s to set a particular challenge. And then, of course, there are the memes.
As recent videos on social media highlight, one of those memes has spawned from the September 10, 2025 death of the far-right podcaster.
In this custom in-game scenario that a player set up, an NPC (non-player character) stands idly under the canopy of a fruit vendor stall on the campus of University of San Andreas, Los Santos campus.
(There are many recordings online; this one is short and to the point)
On the rooftop, the player has a sniper rifle, and must then snipe the NPC.
A graphic appears, saying: “Mission Passed.”
To be clear, Rockstar (the company that creates the Grand Theft Auto series and is accused of some nasty union-busting) did not create the scenario.
Instead, the game featured tools — as many games do — for players to set up their own missions.
The mission title is “We Are Charlie Kirk.” As you may or may not be aware, an AI-generated “song” with that title emerged less than a week after the white nationalist’s death.
Rockstar is explaining its censorship policy
TMZ spoke to Rockstar, who said that missions like this one are reported to the trust and safety team and then deleted.
The company also acknowledged that they have added the dead podcaster’s name to the game’s “profanity” list, effectively censoring its use.
Rockstar’s goal isn’t to censor people trying to discuss the divisive figure. Quite the opposite: it seems that the company’s goal is to prevent people from mocking him or quipping memes about him.
It’s their company and they can choose how to limit gameplay and discussion on their platform (up to a point). Just as it’s the choice of players whether to play.
That said, it probably sucks for a lot of players who were having a good time with their friends who now find their work undone and have to move some simple conversations to Discord to avoid censorship.
There are many scenarios where companies intercede in in-game player expression for a good cause.
Over the years, developers of multiplayer games and moderators of online discussions have had to step in end hateful displays in various forms. Welcoming bigotry means chasing out everyone else.
Hate speech has surged in recent years, flourishing in conservative circles and spreading from there.
Tech companies have gleefully abandoned responsibility, with companies like Meta shifting to the right in pursuit of unregulated profit.
Of course, the Kirk thing isn’t really hate speech and also doesn’t really apply to anyone but the Christian nationalist himself, who is not playing these games and who is also no longer alive.
Is the Kirk vengeance cycle still going strong?
The week or two after Kirk’s death, America felt like a world gone mad.
According to Reuters, as many as 600 people lost their jobs or faced other disciplinary action at work for more or less not reacting “properly” to the viral video. Police held a man in jail for 37 days with no legal justification over his comments.
That man is suing, and he is not alone. It turns out that not mourning enough is not a crime. Even when the person who died is a good person, but also when they were not.
This move by Rockstar feels like an extension of September’s vengeful frenzy. But it’s hard to see how players could sue over this. It sucks, but playing the game is optional, and Rockstar is allowed to rain on their parade.
Some credit Erika Kirk’s controversies for helping a few people in society come to their senses about the post-Kirk backlash.