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.

Only in the same way that Camille Paglia is an acceptable casualty of rape, by her own logic.

Or in the same way that being killed by a car is "an acceptable price to pay" for crossing the road (i.e. you judge that the risk of it is an acceptable price to pay).

I genuinely can’t be arsed searching out the homophobic clips.
Also- being gay is NOT a lifestyle choice and anyone who says it is IS homophobic and can go f themselves.

Mmm, no. Thats logic doesn’t work. Sorry.

@Idinnaenah

Maybe because the homophobic clips you refer don't actually exist.

If one thing Charlie Kirk espoused was pro reality backed up by facts and not prejudice.

Yeah - that’s how martyrs are made. Whoever did this clearly didn’t think that aspect through.

One opinion he did hold was that we need to talk to people we don’t agree with and hear their views.

That is not something the person who shot him believes in - or apparently those who disagree with the views he held.

The lack of self-awareness is hilarious.

So a poster finds evidence that he says he doesn't hate LGBT and you double down and say he does but 'cannot be arsed to go find evidence'. Interesting debating style, make a claim, don't substantiate the claim, someone counteracts the claim with actual evidence to show he doesn't hate LGBT and then you cannot be arsed to continue. Says a lot about these 'claims' wonder if most of the things he was supposed to say are actually true.

So does it make me left wing because I don't agree with his racist, homophobic, and anti abortion views?

You seem really upset over the death of a horrible, bigoted white supremacist. Weird.

No-one should be murdered for their point of view. Be very very careful of what you celebrate.

Doesn't take long for them to show their true (vicious and vitriolic) colours, does it now?!

Straight to the ad-hominems and insults.

Dangermoo said nothing about wishing him dead, just that she is not upset that he is. You are making things up.

If you mean my logic doesn't work then I'm interested why you think that.

1. Accepting the risk of something does not mean seeking or supporting it:

Camille Paglia said "Give us freedom to risk rape!" It does not follow that she was pro-rape. But she was realistic that in the world we are in there is a trade-off, and she opposed moves to restrict freedoms she valued on the grounds of that risk.

Charlie Kirk said “I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights". It does not follow that he was pro gun deaths. But he was realistic that in the world we are in there is a trade-off, and he opposed moves to restrict freedoms he valued on the grounds of that risk.

(I'm anti 2nd amendment, by the way, but that's neither here nor there).

2. 'The risk of being a casualty of X' is not the same as 'being a casualty of X'.

Saying CK thought being a casualty of a shooting was an acceptable price of the second amendment is to set up a straw-man.

This becomes obvious the moment you look at other examples. Let's say you left your teenager at home while you went to buy a newspaper. The house burns and your teenager is killed. Who in their right mind would say that you obviously felt beforehand that his/her death was worth it for the newspaper. What you thought was worth it beforehand was the risk of that happening.

I think his stance on guns was pretty normal for the US. As such, I can shrug and say 'oh well, those gun lovin' Yanks, eh?'

But when it comes to thinking that raped female children should be forced to give birth, I can't shrug, because that is pure evil. Just that one belief alone makes him an evil man.

I can't see where they celebrate the death in that post?

He says marriage should only happen between man and woman. So presumably if he was in power, he would have outlawed gay marriage.

If you were gay, would you not find that homophobic? If a British MP said marriage should only happen between man and woman, they would be sacked.

Hmm your argument hinges on the word "presumably ". Just because it was his own opinion that doesn't mean that he wants to force that through as Government policy. He was simply taking his views from a strong Christian standpoint.

Tony Blair for example is and was against abortion but at no point did he suggest making that Government policy recognising that others may have different views.

Let's say you left your teenager at home while you went to buy a newspaper. The house burns and your teenager is killed. Who in their right mind would say that you obviously felt beforehand that his/her death was worth it for the newspaper. What you thought was worth it beforehand was the risk of that happening.

The newspaper analogy only works if you’ve:

previously campaigned against fire safety legislation,

publicly said that children dying in house fires is an acceptable side effect of people being allowed to own flammable houses, and

insisted that regulations to prevent those fires infringe your “God-given right” to live in a tinderbox.

At that point, if you still pop out for the paper and your teenager burns, it’s not just that you “accepted the risk.” You actively supported the conditions that made the tragedy likely — and you declared in advance that the resulting deaths were an acceptable price.

$12 mill was his net worth at 31, spouting controversial soundbites certainly pays. At least his kids will have enough money

The bible ain’t ‘facts’ but Google Kirk and Ms Rachel and you will find a video of charlie’s smug face on a panel ‘Thoughtcrime Charlie Kirk &’Jack posobiec’ quoting the stoning quote.
I’m not posting the video link because Fbthat.c they get $’every time…

Are you saying that if someone opposes gay marriage, they are not homophobic?

Yep, he was using donations to his non-profit for his own mega salary.

Of course he was. I couldn’t bear his style of talking which was basically arrogant bloke ‘schooling’ whoever it was - half the time a plant in the audience to make himself look good.
that podcast manosphere bro style where every opinion is presented as a fact. Except his was laced with bible quotes.

Cicero wept.

Debate is both a skill and a discipline. Critical thinking requires teaching, as does emotional control. Some are more naturally talented than others, but it is neglected as a field of study that all could benefit from. It’s a facet of liberalism, which is erroneously conflated with leftism, and ironically has increasingly become a dirty word for leftists and rightists alike.

Authoritarianism is a problem across the political left-right axis.

Charlie Kirk was effective because he had some training in debate, and he employed that against opponents that didn’t. He was also strategic in what he released. The times when he came up against opponents that were both skilled and trained, he was quickly exposed as someone that was actually quite a poor debater. Ben Shapiro ran into the same issue with Andrew Neil.

Incidentally, someone that wins a debate isn’t automatically right in their argument any more than someone who loses is wrong in theirs. It simply means that the person who won is better at presenting their argument in debate. A good debater can and will successfully be able to sell absurdity and convince you of the brilliance of it. A poor debater can even do that to those without knowledge and training. That’s why it’s such a valuable skill, and precisely why it’s dangerous to neglect it.

You appear to have a rather selective memory. This was what you wrote:

... the fact that he was murdered in such a prominent way for speaking his views...

You included the claim in not just the same sentence, but the same clause. You even emphasised it. That is a clear, unsubstantiated claim that the motivation was his views.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot/card/ammunition-in-kirk-shooting-engraved-with-transgender-antifascist-ideology-sources-pdymd1sXXMSlVRhpvR4b

Wall Street Journal are reporting that the ammunition used to kill Charlie was engraved with transgender, anti-fascist ideology.

I just saw it, thanks.

This bit is so true. Charlie Kirk says 'Leviticus 18 says "Thou shalt lay with another man and be stoned to death"... just saying'.

So he says overtly homophobic things and then quite cowardly says he's just the messenger.