RIP Charlie Kirk

vigras rojara said:
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.
Click to expand...

An interesting reply. But I see it as a false equivalence.

Shouting fire in a theatre gets people killed due to false alarm. Hence, the prosecutable consequences of the freedom to shout a false warning.

Saying Kim is a nonce doesn't result in anyone being killed but you, and is not comparable to shouting a false warning. It's the expression of a personal opinion, unlike the false warning in the theatre.

Being killed for an opinion, no matter how unpopular, is not free speech. Like Charlie Kirk experienced.
 
Candice taking a lot of heat.

Now that Erica is CEO of Turning Point, it'll be interesting to see if she can be influenced by the heavy-weight sponsors... including Netanyahu.

Erica will have to decide whether she is going to stand for free speech and continue Charlie's legacy as such, or if she capitulates to the Neocons.
 
Mariner said:
An interesting reply. But I see it as a false equivalence.

Shouting fire in a theatre gets people killed due to false alarm. Hence, the prosecutable consequences of the freedom to shout a false warning.

Saying Kim is a nonce doesn't result in anyone being killed but you, and is not comparable to shouting a false warning. It's the expression of a personal opinion, unlike the false warning in the theatre.

Being killed for an opinion, no matter how unpopular, is not free speech. Like Charlie Kirk experienced.
Click to expand...

Most instances of free speech being exercised and acted against, don't involve the theatre scenario, or people being killed.

I think that the issue is probably determining what is free speech and therefore protected and what is hate speech, which is actionable.

That is unfortunately always going to be subjective, not objective and therefore a bit of a minefield, no matter which side of the political fence one sits.
 
1) Free speech was always - going back 300 years in Calssical Liberalism - limited to

a) the public domain, as opposed to private contracts, and​
​
b) non-violent threats, meaning free speech excludes threats of violence made that are both credible and imminent.​

That's free speech, in the context of the USA. (the only other thing to note is an exception which relates to so-called "Intellectual Property"... which contradicts the 1st Amendment).

2) Hate-speech is a relatively recent invention by the Left, as a work-around to free speech.

see:

 
If I were Candace, I would not be taking any light aircraft flights.... not for the foreseeable future.

As an outspoken black conservative willing to expose the rot, she is too rare of a species to lose.

Ofc she's not that stupid. She knows they're gunning for her.

She has a sense of righteous anger about her at the moment.
 
vigras rojara said:
I think that the issue is probably determining what is free speech and therefore protected and what is hate speech, which is actionable.
Click to expand...

lexity said:
2) Hate-speech is a relatively recent invention by the Left, as a work-around to free speech.
Click to expand...

The concept of hate speech did not exist when the 1st amendment was enacted. Its intent is as a limitation on free speech by those opposed to free speech while falsely presenting it as a civilising limitation.
 
Mariner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Once society has agreed around the definition of free speech, it is solidified. I think everyone agreed, and agrees, that speech that threatens immediate harm, is not included in the definition of "free speech". Sure, free speech "absolutists" have an argument to make, but I'm not sure how far those go beyond theoretical argument.

Mariner said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's a societal check-and-balance. If supporting views lobby against the cancel, it will bear enough pressure and swing the discourse, or attempt to bring balance towards an unbalanced view. Fact remains, it does not carry the threat of criminal prosecution. As much as the right can use this tool, the left can too. Many things in life can be "sinister" according to personal interpretation, but that does not make them illegal. To be honest, your argument goes against the cancellation/firing of Kimmel and rejects it on premise, where I'm more accepting the firing as being permitted, but not what Carr is openly advocating for.
 
lexity said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's simply explained if the bullet did not hit him strait on, but clipped his neck.
 
Sapphiron said:
Its was a pretty hefty caliber, I would expect it to blow through the spine, but you could be right.
Click to expand...
I've seen talk of Cavitation in the soft tissue causing the bullet to enter a spin and basically just nuke all the squishy bits,nothing left to crack through bone which is pretty tough

This guy discusses the squishy parts pretty interestingly
https://www.tiktok.com/video/7550035271664897310
 
Bewlen said:
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"
Click to expand...
no, that is not, leftists don't agree, they talk for peace, but actually they are extreme violence.
when they say they will kill us etc, then they will tell us that is their freedom, we must have tolerance for different voices.
but when we say that, that will be labelled as "racist", "sexist", "homophobia", "hate speech" etc. we have no right to express ourselves, "freedom of speech" is not completely free etc, that kind of BS.

Charlie Kirk is the classic example.

Bewlen said:
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.
Click to expand...
no, 100% wrong, when you have a post / article in the public domain, then you already allowed people can see this, that is not a private conversation. you are expecting someone will hear what you are saying. your argument is flawed, not mine.

you didn't answer do we have our freedom to fire the person we don't want the leftists in our companies?

Bewlen said:
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
Click to expand...

that is exactly what leftists are doing. what about the "k" word, or "n" word or "monkey" or etc ........ how many things we can't say now?
if I have to give you a completely list, I don't know when I can finish it.

as I said before, leftists love to make up their own story and pointing a finger to the other side, accusing us of what we did. but in fact, the guilty party is the leftists.
 
DreamKing said:
no, that is not, leftists don't agree, they talk for peace, but actually they are extreme violence.
when they say they will kill us etc, then they will tell us that is their freedom, we must have tolerance for different voices.
but when we say that, that will be labelled as "racist", "sexist", "homophobia", "hate speech" etc. we have no right to express ourselves, "freedom of speech" is not completely free etc, that kind of BS.

Charlie Kirk is the classic example.


no, 100% wrong, when you have a post / article in the public domain, then you already allowed people can see this, that is not a private conversation. you are expecting someone will hear what you are saying. your argument is flawed, not mine.

you didn't answer do they have their freedom to fire the person they don't want them in the company?



that is exactly what leftists are doing. what about the "k" word, or "n" word or "monkey" or etc ........ how many things we can't say now?
if I have to give you a completely list, I don't know when I can finish it.

as I said before, leftists love to make up their own story and pointing a finger to the other side, accusing us of what we did. but in fact, the guilty party is the leftists.
Click to expand...

You're seriously upset that you can't use the "N" or "K" words anymore, or call people monkeys?

Damn that must be tough for you. 🙄
 
Bewlen said:
Once society has agreed around the definition of free speech, it is solidified.
Click to expand...

There can never be any agreement around the definition of freedom of speech, as it means speech has limitations and not all will agree on the same limitation. Freedom of speech is absolute; otherwise, it cannot be freedom of speech.

Bewlen said:
Sure, free speech "absolutists" have an argument to make, but I'm not sure how far those go beyond theoretical argument.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is not theoretical. It is absolute.

Bewlen said:
It's a societal check-and-balance.
Click to expand...

There can never be a check and balance on an absolute right. Are you telling me the right to life in South Africa, which is an absolute right, can have checks and balances?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X