Cruel liberals bash family-run Midwest farm after they created Charlie Kirk corn maze in his memory
An Indiana family business, Goebel Farms in Evansville, has faced a fierce backlash after unveiling a corn maze designed as a tribute to conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was shot dead in September 2025. The maze, revealed just days before the anniversary of his killing, features Kirk's face carved into the crop along with the Turning Point USA logo and the words "RIP CK". The farm said the design honoured Kirk's commitment to free speech and dialogue over division, but the tribute instead triggered widespread criticism from people who viewed Kirk as a divisive figure.
Critics flooded the farm's Google listing with one-star reviews, driving its rating down to 1.6 stars, while social media accounts were inundated with angry comments and pledges from longtime visitors to boycott the attraction. The farm subsequently appeared to remove its Google listing and disabled comments on its social media posts, prompting accusations of hypocrisy given its earlier statements about valuing open discussion. Goebel Farms defended the maze in a follow-up Facebook statement, acknowledging Kirk's polarising reputation but insisting the display was not intended to compel agreement with his views, only to mark that no one should lose their life over political expression.
- Indiana farm's Charlie Kirk tribute corn maze sparks major online backlash.
- Google rating plunged to 1.6 stars; listing later removed.
- Farm disabled social media comments after hypocrisy accusations over free speech claims.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the farm argue that a private business has every right to create a memorial reflecting its own values, and that honouring a man murdered for his political speech is a legitimate, even necessary, statement about the dangers of political violence. They see the backlash, including review-bombing and boycott calls, as an attempt to punish a small family business for expressing a viewpoint, which they view as ironic given that free expression was central to what the maze commemorated. From this perspective, disabling comments was a reasonable response to targeted harassment rather than hypocrisy, since distinguishing between open debate and coordinated pile-ons is a legitimate line to draw.
The case against
Critics argue that Kirk was a deeply polarising figure whose rhetoric on race, gender and other issues caused real harm to many communities, and that a business choosing to memorialise him in such a prominent, celebratory way should expect strong public reaction, particularly from those who felt targeted by his views. They see the one-star reviews and boycott calls as legitimate consumer expression rather than cruelty, no different in principle from any other market response to a business's public stance. From this view, the farm's decision to shut down comments and remove its listing while claiming to champion dialogue does reveal a double standard, since genuine commitment to open discussion would mean tolerating criticism as well as praise.