Right wing cancel culture at it again.

[Batmanisaplaceinturkey]

This really is a scary time for free speech.

Another example right wing hypocrisy when it comes to free speech:

Jimmy Kimmel Live! suspended indefinitely after host’s Charlie Kirk comments https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/sep/18/jimmy-kimmel-live-suspended-indefinitely-after-hosts-charlie-kirk-comments?CMP=share_btn_url

Here, go learn something…

www.vanityfair.com/news/story/charlie-kirk-ezra-klein-tanehisi-coates?srsltid=AfmBOopd-xCh5R0zdNrmg8T6dTkks3tU9z2uo8AiE4KqTOVJ5hPzkIa-

But I didn't say that and I am not saying that..

I'm quoting this from a post upthread:

Athreedoorwardrobe · Today 11:35

I also think the shooter sounds very much like libertarian not a socialist or anarchist. Which is a socially liberal far right movement. He was still very pro gun, pro business... he just didn't want individual freedoms curtailed and was particularly interested in gay and trans rights apparently...
Trying to make this a left v right thing is very disingenuous. That's not the whole picture of police thought particularly in the US where libertarianism is very in vogue.
**

It's the "as interpreted by the victim or anyone else". So if Kimmel was British and Keir Starmer was Trump (shudder) then he could basically get the police to record a hate incident against Kimmel for what he said. Based on his interpretation. It very much depends purely on the goodwill of the police and those in power not to misuse or overuse the law. And that makes it a badly written law.

The malicious communications act is also a problem https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78n455mj08o (for shining a light at a building)

Both of them are addressing real problems. But in a way that gives.too much power to anyone who wanted to crack down on dissent. For any reason. The UK does have a bit of a free speech problem at the moment TBH.

None of which justifies the joy people are taking in Kimmel's cancellation. Given he lives in a different country and had nothing to do with these laws!

You must have missed it also.

"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said during his show’s Monday monologue.

Not worth getting fired for, but the left has cancelled many for much, much less. Maybe someday, both political sides will either grow the f#ck up or a more moderate group will sneak in and leave the left and the right with their knickers in a twist. One can only hope.

The law is vague and unknown. Anyone could accuse you of a hate crime. If the police do not think it meets the criminal threshold they will record it as a NCHI. They do not have to tell you they have done this and you might only find out about it if you needed a DBS check where it will show up. There were over 13000 such complaints recorded last year. That's over 13000 people with a police record they may be unaware of and without a right to reply. So yes NCHI are ridiculous.

The people who pushed cancel culture think a difference of opinion is hate speech. I've been labelled as all sorts for saying that human beings cannot change sex. These words are apparently violence. My acknowledgement of biological fact apparently means I'm denying someone's right to exist and I want all transpeople dead. So no people do not know what hate speech is. Many confuse speech they hate with hate speech.

I hear you, 'offence' laws are certainly problematic but I was more referring to hate speech laws which are less discretionary.

Surely that is about perception and context, and your perception makes into a clear cut issue whereas actually the whole situation is far more nuanced. By all accounts he was from a MAGA family and did hold some traditionally Maga views, he also appeared to hold views which are polar to that movement.
Kimmel did highlighted that MAG are trying to disassociate that connection, just as I imagine those who hold the opposite views are also trying to do.

There's a difference between 'offence' laws which can be discretionary in interpretation & 'hate speech' laws which are more specific.

@Ilfurfante but Kimmel
only referenced the attempts to disassociate from one side .

He did not celebrate murder of Charlie Kirk. He only pointed out that MAGA is trying hard to associate the killer with left. Which is true because the other side tried hard to lie that the killer was influenced by trans ideologies, because which was a lie.

Trump has said so many lies and horrible things about people, he is not getting fired.

And? Are you saying that all the networks now need to present a balanced argument?

Yes, there needs to be some threshold. But IMO it needs to be consistent and consistently applied. And written in a clear enough way that most people (except those acting in extremely bad faith) can see it's being consistently applied. Or it causes more problems than it solves. When you do that, you end up by necessity with something that's either super restrictive, or less restrictive on people's speech than we have now. Basically the same as the limits outlined by Mills (don't directly incite violence, don't shout fire in a crowded theatre, don't stand at the front of an angry mob and inflame them to the point they burn someone's house down).

@FOJNtalked about NCHI though

By all accounts he was from a MAGA family

Never in decades of following the news have I seen the motives of a murderer so widely attributed to his parents' perfectly ordinary voting patterns.

I think its safe to assume anyone who commits politically motivated murder, has been radicalised to the point where growing up in a left/right leaning household has little bearing.

@Ilfurfante and his response to the murder of a man for expressing his opinions was to seek to increase division.

Very true

Yep but I suspect judges might have some sort of precedent/test/standard they rely on when it comes to offences that have broad interpretations like the 'Reasonable Person standard':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Vanity Fair...on Charlie Kirk? This is a known left leaning publication - the one of 'Call Me Caitlyn' Fame?

If you had posted an actual video of Charlie Kirk, that would have been more helpul. Just watch his videos without all the commentary for yourself and make your own mind up. That's the only way you can be objective in any meaningful way.

I can't link the Miller Vs the College of Policing from my tablet because it comes up as a pdf but you should Google it.

Do you think it's reasonable that the police should be able to keep a record of a claim made against you without offering the right to defend yourself? You could argue that it's useful data if identifying information is removed but that's not what happens and it has real world consequences for people when applying for jobs which require DBS checks.

There's this thing called 'links' in the article, try it sometime…

OK.

I was wrong. You came up with your opinion on Charlie Kirk all on your own

I don’t think the Trump folks need to try hard to distance the shooter from MAGA.

Why would a right winger want to shoot Charlie Kirk? Shooter was in a romantic relationship with his transgender roommate. Sounds pretty liberal to me. The engravings on the bullets were online culture war stuff. Can’t see why a shooter motivated by the culture wars were shoot someone on his own side.

The shooter was clearly animated by the hard left. So now we have the left resorting to violence and the right stopping different opinions being shared. They’ve switched sides.

Perhaps we could roll some of this back? Tolerate different opinions. Recognise rights should be universal, reciprocal snd absolute. No more appeals to context, identity, or just being special because this opens the foor to special pleading and sophistry.

The scary thing is I don't think this will end after Trump's presidency ends in 2 years.

There will be a Charlie Kirk 2.0 waiting to step into his shoes.

There's this thing called 'quotes'/EVIDENCE in the 'links' however inconvenient that is…

I think once something comes to court then you can also ask for a Jury. Who are generally quite against imprisoning people for their speech. Or a Judge might throw the case out. So the likelihood of being found guilty is very low.
The problem is, the process of getting to that point is wearing in itself. You can be arrested, charged, have to explain to people whats going on, engage a lawyer. It's a hugely draining experience for most ordinary people, whereas people who enjoy conflict will have a fine old time. It has affected "Gender Critical".people. But if you had a mind you could apply the law to anyone criticising Israel. Or anyone criticising Gaza/Palestine. And we don't know who will be in power on the next 5/10/20 years or what the police will be like. As you may have noticed on this thread there are at least some people who would be positively gleeful to see such laws turned against their "enemies". Which is apparently anyone vaguely left wing. And there are people on the left with the same glee for punishing. It's a human thing.