Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the dark arts worked.
Suppose the Etsy hex (see below) wasn't merely a click-bait stunt but a true invocation of "satanic powers," and that Charlie Kirk's death really was the consequence. Could American law, built on evidence, reason, and the presumption that nature runs on natural causes, ever treat that as a crime?
The common law tradition once took sorcery seriously. Seventeenth-century England executed supposed witches; the Salem trials of 1692 remain a cautionary tale of how badly courts can behave when fear of the supernatural drives verdicts. Out of that history grew the modern evidentiary rules: courts insist on observable facts, expert testimony grounded in scientific method, and proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."
That insistence is not accidental. It is the firewall that keeps folklore and panic from turning into state punishment.
In twenty-first-century America there is no criminal statute for "causing death by spell." Homicide requires a causal link between the defendant's act and the victim's death that can be established through admissible evidence. A ritual, even if sincerely believed to have supernatural power, is treated as protected expression unless it involves a tangible criminal act (e.g., poisoning someone, hiring a hitman).
So even if a Jezebel writer openly said, "I cast a spell so that Charlie Kirk dies," the state would still need to prove that the death was caused by some natural, demonstrable mechanism, poison, weapon, negligence. Courts do not (and under the First Amendment, cannot) recognize supernatural agency as a legal cause.
A civil plaintiff might attempt a tort claim such as intentional infliction of emotional distress. If Erika Kirk could show that the public "hex" was outrageous, intended to cause severe distress, and actually did so, a jury might listen. But the defence would be robust: the statements look like satire or hyperbolic opinion, protected by the First Amendment. Unless the "hex" included direct, credible threats of physical harm, it falls into the broad category of offensive speech the Supreme Court routinely protects.
Even imagining a courtroom that entertained the possibility of satanic causation, the Federal Rules of Evidence demand more than testimony like "I felt a dark presence." Expert witnesses must base their opinions on methods "reliably applied to the facts of the case." Supernatural causation has no peer-reviewed methodology to satisfy Daubert standards. Without physical evidence, chemical traces, ballistic match, medical cause, the prosecution has nothing admissible.
This does not mean the Kirks' belief is mocked or dismissed in a pastoral sense. Courts simply draw a boundary between private faith and public proof. The system protects the right to believe in spiritual warfare while simultaneously refusing to punish others for allegedly wielding it.
If one accepts, as a matter of faith, that the hex tapped satanic power, that conviction lives in the realm of theology and morality, not statutory law. The modern legal order was designed precisely to avoid re-enacting the witch trials: no one can be imprisoned or sued merely for allegedly making a pact with darkness.
Jezebel's stunt may be tasteless; it may invite moral outrage. But in the courtroom it remains speech, not sorcery. The rules of evidence are a secular spell of their own, one that banishes ghosts, demons, and hexes from the reach of justice.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/megyn-kelly-offers-shocking-update-witches-hired-jezebel/
"As the Gateway Pundit reported, in the days before Charlie Kirk's assassination, the far-left website 'Jezebel' hired witches to put a hex on Kirk.
Megyn Kelly has a shocking and downright creepy update on this. According to Kelly, Charlie and Erika Kirk heard about this before Charlie was killed and were genuinely 'rattled' by the news, especially Erika. Being Christians, they believed this was a genuine threat and had a friend come over to pray with them for Charlie's protection.
Kelly also shares details about how the people associated with the hexing were impatient for the spell to work. However you look at this situation, it was an act of pure evil.
When I was out in Arizona last week I learned that, two weeks before Charlie Kirk was assassinated, the far left website Jezebel declared that it had a mission to cast bad luck or a curse on Charlie. They wanted to hurt him in some way. They declared, "If the far-right misogynist with a bad haircut wants to villainize independent women, Jezebel is more than happy to be the hag of his nightmares."
Jezebel went onto the online marketplace Etsy – yes, Etsy – to "cast a curse" on him. This is actually a thing. Etsy, the website known for making arts and crafts on demand, will happily cast a hex on someone through its 'witches' if you ask them to…
The writer asked, "Is it ethical to curse a man I've never met? Probably not. But is it unethical to let him keep talking? Yes."…
She told the reader she placed her first spell on Etsy to "MAKE EVERYONE HATE HIM" and wondered, "how long would it take to kick in?" The witch servicing her on Etsy contacted her and asked if she would like to "amplify the energetic support" of the spell for an extra $50. She did. And she had to provide Kirk's date of birth for accuracy. The "witch" informed her she had performed the hex, and it was successful. Jezebel wanted to know when they would be getting results on their curse…"