RIP Charlie Kirk

Bewlen said:
Of course it is. That's the whole point. People are free to express themselves. They are free to exercise cancel culture as a choice. They are even free to give their opinions that free speech has gone too far.
Click to expand...

Free speech can only ever be an absolute. Otherwise, who decides the limitations?

I'm interested in seeing the mental gymnastics required to align cancel culture with free speech. Please enlighten me.
 
TheMightyQuin said:
Where in that wall of irrelevant text does it say that the administration wants to change legislation so as to stop free speech.

No...no....not "Where in your head", but "where in those statements/comments.
Click to expand...
ezgif-2a2d69098af339-1758354320018.gif



TheMightyQuin said:
When the left banned Trump from all social media, got Tucker fired
Click to expand...
FOX fired Carlson. The republican mouthpiece, fired Carlson. There was no government interference.

TheMightyQuin said:
...when Obama got Rosanne Barr fired with one phone call to a studio head
Click to expand...
Barr was fired during a Trump administration :ROFL: the"Obama call" also resides purely in that fantastic head of yours :ROFL:.
 
US founders: the US federal govt should have extremely limited powers. [drafts Bill of Rights, amendments]

US govt agencies in 2025: People want to keep what's left of the 1st and 2nd amendment.... hold my beer.
 
I always say "free speech" is unlimited, without restriction.

but motivating (any person) any action against a group of people / a society for causing physically harms / damages, that is not "free speech".
you think you show your intention to kill a person then say, "I am going to kill you now", that is your "freedom of speech"?

I have no problem for any person to express their views about their hatreds against Charlies Kirk. that is your freedom, (even your views have made me sick, your views are telling me how evil you are.) however for some other people who felt offended, and they don't like this rubbish to be in their own companies / places, that is also their freedom, right?

so what are the leftists complaining about? you leftists can have your freedom, but other persons can't have their freedom? that is the reason why I hate leftists their double standards and illogical.
 
DreamKing said:
I always say "free speech" is unlimited, without restriction.

but motivating (any person) any action against a group of people / a society for causing physically harms / damages, that is not "free speech".
you think you show your intention to kill a person then say, "I am going to kill you now", that is your "freedom of speech"?

I have no problem for any person to express their views about their hatreds against Charlies Kirk. that is your freedom, (even your views have made me sick, your views are telling me how evil you are.) however for some other people who felt offended, and they don't like this rubbish to be in their own companies / places, that is also their freedom, right?

so what are the leftists complaining about? you leftists can have your freedom, but other persons can't have their freedom? that is the reason why I hate leftists their double standards and illogical.
Click to expand...
DreamKing may choose not to look at this, if he still has me on ignore.... but for anyone else...

The obvious limit on free speech is that it applies only to public property, not private property.

When you enter a grocery store, or a cinema... there are limitations that apply to what you say. That's why it says Right of Admission Reserved.

So that's the first thing.... free speech was never meant to be completely unlimited. It applies only to so-called public property.

Secondly, the line is crossed when the State i.e. the legal apparatus,is co-opted to stifle speech.

The Classical Liberal tradition that the West is based on made it clear for more than 300 years that threatening violence had to be both imminent and credible. With the implied requirement that it was also specific to an individual.

The Attorney General and the sitting PotUS both saying "we are going to go after" those who celebrate someone's murder, is crossing that line.

If you can't stick to your own principles, it would be better that you secede.

Don't bitch and moan because the Left are hypocritical. That's very old news. The Left has issues that are best resolved by the Left. If they decline offers of help, the next step is not to shove it down their throats.... it's to calmly but firmly back away and withdraw your support, both economic and social. This is known to be a very effective remedy to the problem of allegiance to tyrants. That's not to say it isn't messy, if you leave it too late. But while they are still openly professing adherence and moral affinity for the Bill of Rights... you had better exercise your right to separate from them.
 
Mariner said:
Free speech can only ever be an absolute. Otherwise, who decides the limitations?

I'm interested in seeing the mental gymnastics required to align cancel culture with free speech. Please enlighten me.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with cancel culture. It's a societal tool. It's nothing more than societal lobbying, although it now has a "new name", it has since man could speak: the choice to either align or reject. Kimmel got cancelled, now certain people are choosing to cancel their Disney subscriptions. Mulvaney was in a Bud Light ad, people chose to stop supporting Bud Light, the Bud Light numbers took a nosedive.

Cancel culture is a choice. Free speech is legislated.

No-one can land in jail for limiting, promoting, exercising or suppressing cancel culture. People can land in jail for breaking the law around free speech.

Free speech as a constitutional amendment - in the case of the US, the very first one - is not a choice, it is a legislative enactment. The very first principle that american democracy was built upon. Free speech guarantees the right of cancel culture to exist.
 
lexity said:
Netanyahu's attempt to paint Kirk as pro-[America-Second-to-]Israel has been exposed as the desperate attempt to shore up the faulty impression given to students across 350 campuses.

He wants to prevent them from doing what Kirk was in the midst of doing when he was assassinated i.e. questioning the legitimacy of current America-Israel relations.

It appears to be emerging that Kirk was beginning to voice his concerns that Netanyahu has been a toxic influence over the US govt, Left and Right.
Click to expand...
8BF3726E-96D9-48C2-B515-69CB795C7C5B.jpeg
 
lexity said:
The obvious limit on free speech is that it applies only to public property, not private property.

free speech was never meant to be completely unlimited. It applies only to so-called public property.
Click to expand...

Free speech can only ever be unlimited. Otherwise, it is not free. You can scream fire in a theatre. But you will face the consequences. With freedom comes responsibility.
 
Ok, so Candice has watched the footage from the camera at the back of Chalie's tent.

No blood can be seen from the back.

Presumably that means no exit wound at the back.

She told the guy who took the camera down that she's not asking for a copy to release. That she just wants to see it.
 
DreamKing said:
I always say "free speech" is unlimited, without restriction.

but motivating (any person) any action against a group of people / a society for causing physically harms / damages, that is not "free speech".
you think you show your intention to kill a person then say, "I am going to kill you now", that is your "freedom of speech"?
Click to expand...
Speaking directly to your example: it's a threat to harm. Both sides agree that such speech should not be allowed, and it is not considered "free speech"

DreamKing said:
I have no problem for any person to express their views about their hatreds against Charlies Kirk. that is your freedom,
Click to expand...
I've even spoken up against his murder, but you're free to keep your own hamster-wheel running there

DreamKing said:
(even your views have made me sick, your views are telling me how evil you are.)
Click to expand...
awh shucks, you're making me blush... that's so nice of you!

DreamKing said:
however for some other people who felt offended, and they don't like this rubbish to be in their own companies / places, that is also their freedom, right?
Click to expand...
People have the "right" to not "hear spoken words"? That is inaccurate. Whether you align with ideas spoken or not, is your choice, but your argument is fundamentally flawed.

DreamKing said:
so what are the leftists complaining about? you leftists can have your freedom, but other persons can't have their freedom? that is the reason why I hate leftists their double standards and illogical.
Click to expand...
Your orange daddy would like to be the final arbiter of which words may and may not be spoken. That's a bit problematic towards the whole idea around non-fascism, I would say
 
Mariner said:
Free speech can only ever be unlimited. Otherwise, it is not free. You can scream fire in a theatre. But you will face the consequences. With freedom comes responsibility.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting point though, isn't it.

One could argue that North Korea has free speech, as you can shout "Kim is a homosexual nonce" in the middle of Pyongyang as long as you're prepared to face the consequences of that, too.

I suppose it's what the consequences look like, at the end of the day.
 
172 pages. First thread here to ignore.
Ahh I can't, well let's to 272 pages then.
 
Mariner said:
Free speech can only ever be unlimited. Otherwise, it is not free. You can scream fire in a theatre. But you will face the consequences. With freedom comes responsibility.
Click to expand...
Public property is highly problematic, conceptually.

It contains the seeds of conflict.

That's because unless something is privately owned it is presumed to be jointly owned but ofc there is no such thing as joint ownership... at least not until you divvy up control/rights to use of the resource.

So we are already on shaky ground with public property. Every voter claims the same rights on public property. An arbiter has to step in... and this is precisely how the limited, so-called Nightwatchman State/Minarchy, fails to remain limited.

So given that caveat, free speech is subject to rules whether private or public. Only in the private realm is it clear enough to a counter-party what the rules are. In the public domain it's not clear. And the reason is that people use their own definition of aggression to justify legal force.

To the left aggression includes name-calling. To the Right, it most definitely doesn't..... unless, as of a day ago, your insult is part of a celebration of a person's death.

See how when the Left and Right align, it is to the detriment of individual liberty and the benefit of the State and its allies/cronies? This is by design.

That is why the State and its cronies consider even talking about secession to be kryptonite.
 
Last edited:
Bewlen said:
No-one can land in jail for limiting, promoting, exercising or suppressing cancel culture. People can land in jail for breaking the law around free speech.
Click to expand...

There can be no laws regarding freedom of speech. The moment you restrict free speech by law, it is not free. Free speech is an absolute. Otherwise, it is not free. That does not mean that free speech cannot have consequences.

Bewlen said:
I have no problem with cancel culture. It's a societal tool. It's nothing more than societal lobbying, although it now has a "new name", it has since man could speak: the choice to either align or reject. Kimmel got cancelled, now certain people are choosing to cancel their Disney subscriptions. Mulvaney was in a Bud Light ad, people chose to stop supporting Bud Light, the Bud Light numbers took a nosedive.
Click to expand...

Cancel culture is far more sinister than that. It seeks to exclude thinkers who think differently from others from expressing their ideas. When publishing houses or institutes of thought and philosophy, such as universities, are controlled by finance from particular narratives, those with opposing views are excluded, no matter the merits of their argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X