Freedom of speech isn't tolerated by some

[WhatNextBanana]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comment/2025/09/10/charlie-kirks-shooting-terrible-moment-american-democracy/

Political violence on the rise.

People are getting angry when people have Political views they don't agree with. Freedom of speech must be allowed not shutdown.

Tragic news of a young family man shot by someone today. Please remember he was a human with a family. Violence is never ok.

I wonder if he would have held those beliefs if he knew he'd be one of the unfortunate gun deaths

Whereas your left espouses hate, full stop. So for your pointed remarks about the right spouting hate, look at yourself. You are the one trying to stifle free speech.

I’m sure it would have saddened him, but perhaps he would have argued that the principle still stood, not being dictated purely by self-interest.

You mean you wonder if he would have exercised free speech if he knew he was going to be assassinated for it?

Rubbish. The ‘sword’ in this case are his words. An appropriate response against him would have been to debate him.

I do find it ironic the Christian right are suddenly such big proponents of free speech. As someone enmeshed in that world for decades, there were so so many things we were not allowed to say ... especially as a woman. Going outside the accepted views could get you shunned, isolated, kicked out, gossiped about, put on the prayer list 🙄, hauled before the leadership team, removed from positions within the church, kicked out of your family etc etc etc. And my churches through the years weren't particularly fundamentalist ... but as a woman it was a fight to be able to speak in church, or be able to wear a slogan tshirt (that's slutsville apparently). Listening to Britney was a huge no no. We were encouraged to burn her CDs at youth group bonfires. As far as I'm aware this stuff still goes on. Free speech champions they most decidedly are not. It's laughable.

Exactly. Debate back if that’s what is wanted.

Interesting that quite a few names on here, showing no sensitivity to this death, are those who are proponents against Israel. Coincidence that their rhetoric is riddled with holes? The shame on you chants are really now ironic.

I don't make that assumption. These people have profiles and jobs. I don't think they're bots

What has religion got to do with murdering this man?

I agree open debate is important and fundamental, but I find it hard that some of his positions weren't just opinions. They had real world consequences that caused harm. For me that makes it difficult to respect the principal he stood for because the principle and outcomes were so tied together.

Again, I haven't wished violence on him. In don't think violence is the answer, I find it hard to reconcile that he also held this position given that his political stance has harmed so many people. He himself has died as consequence of the political positions he has defended.

I guess it depends what you're reading. I'm thinking specifically comment threads online, whether that's here, Reddit, Facebook or whatever counts as twitter these days. But yes, real people should be held to account for their words - though equally you should support their right to say them.

“Listening to Britney was a huge no no. We were encouraged to burn her CDs at youth group bonfires“

Thirty years ago….

But what’s the religious stuff have to do with the principle of free speech? They’re separate issues.

Most of those look like middle-of-the-road policies to me. We've got free childcare in the UK, which was expanded to its current level by the Tories - a centre-right party. One small city in a red county in Colorado I was looking at has free buses so that clearly isn't anathema to the Republicans. Plenty of other places in the US have free public transport too, including Kansas City and Detroit. Rent regulation has been done in a few US states too.

Held to account what way? What does that mean? Who is holding them to account? Who is the supreme arbiter here?

I didn’t justify murder. And no supposition either, there was a direct quote from him earlier in the thread.

People are talking about how this is a religious attack and I've certainly seen that online, as well as on this thread ...I'm just outlining the religious groups that are very vocal about "free speech" in relation to this incident within this particular US context often overlap hugely with those groups and people that have advocated and ensured oppression of free speech within their churches.

Just like how the "protectors of womankind" are often the same ones espousing that female bodies are dangerous and need to be covered up and controlled, preferably pregnant to boot and available sexually all the time to their husbands, consent not required.

The question by the OP wasn't "is political violence ok?" Though.

So the results on the poll are probably skewed by the linking of this murder to meaning people as a whole/a particular group of people don't believe in free speech, or if people don't feel sympathy for him or in some cases actually celebrate his death, then they don't believe in free speech and then the division along left/right fighting.

The poll isn't really a clear question so taking meaning from it is of limited value at best.

If the question is simply is "freedom of speech isn't tolerated by some?" A true statement then the answer should be 100% yanbu because it's unequivocally true. The Taliban, Donald Trump, those who criticize JK Rowling are all anti free speech for example.

But the poll can be taken a lot of different ways in which a yabu means "nah killing Kirk and political violence is fine"
I voted yabu because I think it's disingenuous to link the two based on a violent criminals violent crime unless you're going to talk about the persistent erosion and attempts to censor from both sides.

Kirk supported a man who tried to overthrow a Democratic election and disregard the expression of millions of Americans, so you can lump him in with the people who don't believe in free speech if you want to take a broad interpretation.

Well he was deeply homophobic I think that's pretty abhorrent to want people dead just because of their sexuality

Of course no one should be murdered for their views.

But I don’t understand the outpouring of grief from some posters. We must be clear that this man was a master at dehumanising others.

This person was found a certain level of gun deaths acceptable. He chose to not see people as individuals, of intrinsic value, with lives and families who love them, but as collateral damage. He put a principle above humanity.

He was an enabler of policies that removed healthcare rights and inflicted misery on women and girls. Abortion is healthcare. He made his ideology of greater importance than a disadvantaged group’s right to healthcare.

The world will carry on without him. I feel sorry for his family because they will paying the price until the day they die. They must be absolutely traumatised.

Only if it's "right" Christianity. So Christians, now, are split into left and right. Reminds me of the bullshit excuse for antisemitism, when talking about zionism.

Being homophobic doesn’t mean you want people dead….

No, I mean would he have been so pro-gun knowing that he would be killed by one? Don't put words into my mouth

No, he chose to advocate sitting down with opponents and debating with them, especially those that are filled with hate. I can see how his ideology was off kilter on MN. These threads have shown the most disregard for free speech, except when it comes to glorifying political assassination.

I was responding to a previous poster who brought it up, if you can't see the relevance then move along.

All I'm saying is religious influence in US politics is massive, and a lot of the people suddenly in support of free speech in this instance do not support that same right in their schools, their communities, their churches. Heck Trump just the other day was trying to censor slavery from the Smithsonian cos it looked bad. This is not a country where by and large "freedom of speech" is unequivocally supported - it's usually freedom of speech for me, but not for x. Insert your choice of x here.