Freedom of speech isn't tolerated by some

People keep saying this but it’s not unusual to be anti abortion. Or support gun ownership. Many many people see gun ownership as necessary to ensure the government can be defended against if necessary, which is how CK could say the thing everyone is holding against him in a pretty gross way. He was looking at a purpose beyond just the immediate

it’s pretty ironic given the dramatic declarations of Trump being some sort of dictator, you’d think if you thought that you’d understand the argument for gun ownership….but alas joined up thinking is not a character trait of the left.

To say he held abhorrent views is a stretch

Gun violence is a big problem in the US. Look at the attacks against Democrats in Minnesota. Maybe something should be done to stop the proliferation of lethal weapons. Some kind of gun control perhaps?

Doesn‘t help of course that the President implicitly condones this sort of violence. He recently pardoned the violent mob who stormed the Capitol.

I can’t fathom some posters being so utterly gleeful about his murder. Sick twisted people.

Fight words with words, not violence.

My heart goes out to his family.

The issue is these days some people view their viewpoint as ‘correct’ or ‘morally right’. If something is right, then objectively that must mean the opposing viewpoint is wrong. As if their opinion is fact.

never forget, you are entitled to an opinion, you are never entitled to a fact.

the current irony im enjoying is the loosely slung phrase of ‘intolerance!’ from both sides just now. Since the lockdowns the world has went crazy and honestly I want to get off. I want sanity, I want stability, I want safety!

Saying that gun deaths are worth it is advocating gun violence.

Those talking about free speech and then going on to criticise anyone who had anything bad to say about him can’t have it both ways.

Either you believe that anyone has the right to say anything they like, or you don’t.

But generally those who talk about upholding the right to free speech mean that someone should have the right to express unpalatable and often offensive opinions without consequence. And we’re not just talking about Charlie Kirk here.

The irony is that the individual who killed Charlie Kirk almost certainly held the same views as he did hence why they had a gun and weren’t afraid to use it.

he didn’t deserve to be killed for holding those views, but holding the view that deaths are ok doesn’t become less unpalatable just because he was murdered. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, “literally nothing” like you. Because we’re not both democracies with similar judicial systems, and we don’t speak the same language, and we don’t consume each other’s arts and pop culture as a matter of course, and the US has become a completely different species - genus and species! - from the UK, merely 250 years since the original thirteen states were British colonies.

Quit making statements that are so hyperbolic that they make you sound more ignorant than I’m sure you really are.

This world lacks common sense. What’s next… someone gets stabbed because they disagree with someone claiming they are a fucking cat?

Are you really saying that he wouldn’t agree that killing people for having opposing views is wrong?

Trump’s presidency has ushered in an era of political violence in the US. He has fanned the flames of hatred, dehumanisation and intolerance, and this kind of thing is the result.

Some of his views absolutely sickened me however I uphold his right to hold and express them without the fear of violence. What's happened is abhorrent. My thoughts are with his family

when people talk about freedom of speech what they generally mean is that they should be allowed to hold and express any abhorrent views they choose without consequence.

This is literally the definition of free speech. We should all defend the expression of views without consequence. Irrespective of whether we find them abhorrent.

Plenty of hypocrites were out in force on those threads.

I was wondering why there wasn't a thread, now realised threads have been removed.

I disagreed on most of what he had to say but he didn't deserve this.

I fear that there will be people seeking revenge.

He didn't advocate gun violence, but he absolutely opposed restrictions on gun control.

So yes, his death is ironic. Not ethically justifiable, but ironic. He supported the idea that guns should be carried by members of the general public, even on university campuses.

We have no idea why he was killed, or of the ideology of the gunman. This might be absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

I am so sorry for his poor family.

This is a very important point. People talk like we're brother and sister with the US. Culturally they are nothing like us! Literally nothing like us. We're both first world countries with relative wealth , but culturally? Nothing like the UK.

We're more similar to France /Germany

I often wonder if members of Antifa are on this forum. I am being serious after what I witnessed tonight.

No, the issue he was discussing was the number of gun deaths. He had just been asked a question as to how many there had been and he responded "including gang violence or not?"

The transgender related question was some time before the shooting.

So what?

Hear hear.

I didn't agree with his views at all. But of course he should have the right to say them and this is abhorrent. I am glad I am not on social media platforms which allow the shooting to be circulated

Google it. In 2023 he said that gun deaths were worth it to keep the second amendment.

Who decides what is abhorrent?