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'd wasn't aware of Melissa H shooting so wouldn't post about her would I. Another poster asked why no one bothered to post about her death, so I asked if the poster if they had started a thread about her death since they'd raised the question about why she didn't get a thread, however, they didn't bother doing it themselves. You can't post about what you are unaware of can you 😂

Go back and read the comments made from other poster then you will understand better why I asked them if they'd bothered, since they raised lack of thread. They didn’t bother.

Yes, I have to agree, Charlie Kirk’s morality was a mass of apparent contradictions (though if he were still here I’m sure he’d try and argue it isn’t) but then, if we’re being honest, all of us a mass of contradictions!

Anyone who thinks they have a set of logically bullet-proof and entirely mutually consistent viewpoints is deluding themselves!

The fact remains, Charlie Kirk had a strict set of morals that he seemed to try and stick to, morals that he strongly believed in. He may have been wrong, deluded even, but he didn’t seem to be an immoral
man to me.

Why don't people see the difference between ' free speech' and 'hate speech ' ?

Charlie Kirk was a racist bigot who thought there was a God given right to have guns, and a few mass shootings was an OK price to pay.

He was an extremely dangerous individual, not someone who simply had a 'different opinion'.

Why are you waffling on about flags and knuckle daggers. What's that got to do with my comments about the death of a man. I've never mentioned either. You've confused me with someone else 🙄

I don't know what the racism references are about, but on guns wasn't his point that if you allow guns in society you will inevitably get shootings because there are bad people and those bad people might get access to a gun, but that the right to bear guns is important enough in a US cultural and historical context for that to be the price (rather than thinking it being a good/welcome thing that people use guns for shooting people)?

He had a different strategy for avoiding those deaths, by trying to have debate replace violence and to try and create a strong community and society, built on Christian values.

I don't have to agree with him (and I think it is batshit crazy to oppose all gun control) to see he is applying a moral framework, even if I don't hold the same opinions.

In this country we allow people to keep guns for shooting clay pigeons and game. Sometimes people (men) use those guns to kill their families. Do we think we should stop personal gun ownership completely in order to try and make sure that doesn't happen? Maybe we should, but I don't think that those wanting to shoot for sport are immoral for not being willing to give it up because sometimes bad/ill people might use the guns for awful purposes.

How did you feel about Trump's election denial, attempts to overthrow the election, threats against lawmakers lives and the general violence of the mob as they entered the Capitol? I think thats relevant to any assessment of Kirk's morality.

To my mind:

• he whole-heartedly supported the completely basis notion of the stolen election:
• he knowingly peddled the lie that Mike Pence could legally refuse to certify the election;
• His embracing and spreading of falsehoods contributed to the manifestation of some physical violence, along with threats to politician's lives (including "Hang Mike Pence") - and I, like relevant security personnel, believe that lawmakers could well have been killed if they weren't successfully evacuated.
• He refused to answer questions about his role, to the Jan 6 committee, pleading the 5th instead.

I actually don't judge him or anyone harshly for belief in sancity of life in the abortion context (even if I profoundly disagree) because it has a reasonable religious grounding. I do, though, think everyone involved in the dishonest scheme to overthrow democracy, and who participated in whipping the crowd up into a frenzy through their disinformation and rhetoric, is/was a scumbag of the highest order.

He may have presented himself as some reasonable intellectual, but yeah- to my mind, he was despicable.

Truthfully I don't know as much about those events (and certainly know nothing of Kirk's involvement or views) so difficult to comment.

His behaviour and views may have been despicable on this issue.

Fair enough.

Personally, although he was savvy enough to never directly call for political violence, he'd been happy to stoke and downplay it, if it aligned with his views.

He shouldn't have been murdered, but I'm not sad he's dead. He was an awful man.

I don't know what "being held to account means" in this context

You’ve missed which point the analogy is illustrating (despite my lovely clear numbered heading).

PP’s claim was that CK was an acceptable casualty “by his own logic”. That relies on eliding “the risk of X is an acceptable price” and “X is an acceptable price”. They are nothing like the same.

You might think he did things that made his death more likely or made it ironic, or whatever, but that’s not the point being disputed.

It’s “did CK’s logic mean he accepted being himself killed”? No. What he accepted was a risk.

If you are going to use his quote, use all of it.

"I can't stand the word empathy, I think empathy is a made up new age term and it does a lot of damage.
Sympathy is a better word, because empathy means you are actually feeling what another person felt, and no one can feel what another person feels."

Given that he supported the death penalty, and opposed regulation of lethal weapons he wasn't entirely consistent on the sanctity of life.

i personally loved watching Charlie’s videos and found them quite entertaining. The way he debated was fascinating and watching who he was debating stutter and look around the crowd for help was hilarious. I don’t personally agree with America’s gun laws but I’m respectful enough to understand that that is part of their culture and who am I to think my country’s any better when it’s in the shit state it is. Infact I don’t even feel safe walking about in broad daylight in the uk right now. I didn’t agree with some of his beliefs on abortion but I understand and respect he was a devout Christian and he was pro life. I admire and share the same morals on marriage, chivalry and men being providers. I am a romany gypsy and our morales are very much the same. Even though I’m against abortion being used as a contraception i 100% am all for it in cases of rape victims. So yes I agree with some of the views but not all and that is absolutely fine.

He didn’t deserve to go out like that and the comments online are terrifying. From these two pictures on X people are not even trying to hide their hatred for people who speak up.

Fair enough - its worth a read-up, if you're interested.

For me, there's a profound falsity to someone purporting to care about a fundamental principle of democracy - freedom of speech - who also played a significant role in the campaign to overturn the results of an election.

His carefully cultivated image, and free-speech-defender schtik, was a facade. He was an anti-democractic Christian nationalist and, if he had his way, he'd have been complicit in the stripping of the most powerful means of expression one has in a democracy - the right to vote.

I would be unsurprised to see his murder used as part of a smokescreen for why there wont be free and fair elections in the US next year, so perhaps he'll win in the end.

Double post.

His anti-abortion views predated his suddenly becoming a devout Christian (which only happened a few years ago).

To be honest - and this is speculative on my part - I doubt he was actually believer. I think it was a self-marketing decision.

Anti-abortionists don't believe that life is sacrosanct. They're happy for women to die. Abortion bans kill women. Very much like Kirk's position on gun control, those deaths are the 'acceptable cost' of the policy. Being anti-abortion is not a stance that values life. It means deciding that some women should die rather than allow them autonomy over their own bodies.

Kirk's stated views on abortion and gun control are not about protecting life. That wasn't his priority. He wasn't guided by a moral imperative to preserve life. I would absolutely characterise him as immoral. It doesn't mean I think he should have been shot, I think I need to add for people who might deliberately misinterpret otherwise!

But it's interesting that the people so very exercised by Kirk's death have absolutely nothing to say about that murder even when they are made aware of it. No condemnation of the politically motivated murder of Democrats by a right-wing assassin, no wailing over the death of free speech when someone who advocated for left wing policies was killed, no sadness expressed for her and her husband and her dog who were all shot in the attack. Apparently that assassination didn't indicate that the right are evil and out of control and a danger to society but Kirk's death means that's all true of the left?

It's the eagerness to make political capital for the right from Kirk's killing that's so worrying. These performative, handwringing threads are designed to stoke up yet more division and more violence. It's the last thing we need.

Charlie Kirk crossed the line from free speech into hate speech. Words matter. Some people will act on them.

So you've just said he deserved to die for having an opinion and for saying things, other people didn't like.

That tends to be the view of the left. Look how they treated j k rowling for her views. How many death threats did she get.

Thanks for clarifying, though that you do think people deserve to die for their views. No matter how controversial they are.

I did not say he deserves to deserves to
die!!!!

He absolutely did and his words incited violence against others who didn’t hold the same extremist right wing views. He and his movement were Incredibly harmful in many ways.
There are many people, quite a few educators and academics, who are speaking out now about how they’ve suffered from being singled out by Kirk.

You said he crossed the line, and people will take action.

You definitely said he got what was coming to him and deserve to die. You didn't say it out, right?But that's what you meant. You said he got what was coming to him.And people will take action.

Do you wanna go and say that to his wife's face right now? Or his three year old child. Honestly, do you people think before you post online.

That’s absolutely outrageous. Your interpretation is not what I meant at all. By all means ask me for clarification of what I meant but please don’t tell me what I meant.

That tends to be the view of the left.

And the right - see Melissa Hortman.