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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

Exactly. Who decides what is abhorrent? Take abortion for example.

Pro-life advocates would say it is abhorrent to deliberately kill a living human no matter its stage of development.

Pro-choice advocates would say it is abhorrent to force women who have been raped to carry the baby to term.

Who decides which view is abhorrent? Should only one of these views be allowed to be spoken or debated?

Do you truly think it's acceptable to just say what you please, whatever it is? There is a vast difference between something like 'I'm concerned about the impact of immigration in my local area' vs something like 'n-word scum, I'd burn all their houses down'.

Freedom of speech HAS to have a limit, somewhere. Otherwise it would be acceptable for people to hold and share views like, for example, those Hitler held, with no consequences, under the guise of it being an opinion. Some things imo need a zero tolerance policy.

Obviously you should not be murdered for your views. You are entitled to express what you please, but if you're going to spout horrible views, expect legal or social consequences. If you are going to use words that sound violent, perhaps consider you may also end up on the recieving end of it.

In no way do I think he should have been killed for his opinions, that being said if it were possible to do so I would be intrigued to know if he would still hold the same belief that the second amendment is more important than his life.

Again I don't think its right he was killed but I do sometimes think that some people hold set opinions thinking it will never affect them.

I hope his family are able to grieve as freely and privately as needed

He didn’t believe that killing people is wrong full stop.

In fact he believed that it is perfectly acceptable.

i.e. the man was a murder apologist.

That doesn’t mean that the rest of us should think it was ok, but if it was someone else who had been killed instead of him he presumably wouldn’t have had a problem with it.

Agree. The consequence of expressing one’s views (whether someone finds them abhorrent or not) should certainly not be death. Some of the comments on this and the other threads are batshit and frankly scary.

He compared his support for guns to his support for driving. He said people didnt have to stop driving cos sone people die. The reason someone got killed didnt matter. It didnt matter if they were innocent kids in school getting an education or if it was because of their political views. For him, they were collateral damage and I suspect he will think of his death the same.

My thoughts go to his wife and children

They certainly are. Are these the same people, I wonder, who normally advocate compassion? This sort of proves the point that whether you're to the left or right of the political spectrum, you're not morally superior.

To say he held abhorrent views is a stretch

Oh, he held abhorrent views all right. From the Wikipedia page:
Kirk advocated for parents to never let their daughters receive prescriptions for birth control medication for any reason. He claimed that the medication makes women angry and bitter, which he alleged suited the political leanings of the Democratic Party.

And he spread a hell of a lot of misinformation. Again, the Wiki page is an informative read.

Wiki!

It's always interesting to see British people misunderstand supporters of the US second amendment.

Charlie Kirk made a living debating people with opposing views not killing them.

I disagreed with him on almost everything, and I didn't think he was particularly likeable, but I'm appalled by his murder and the attitude of the sick, twisted individuals on here who think it was justified because they didn't like him/disagreed with him.

When you accuse others of hate you need to look in the mirror, it's so obviously pure projection.

No it’s more akin to owners of XL Bullies being savaged/killed by their loving pet XL bully. Tragic? Yes. Brought on in part by poor choices? Also yes.

I don’t doubt that his desire to share his views with the public and to fan the flames on many occasions was what made Charlie Kirk the target of his assassin. It wasn’t a random act of violence.

Was it deplorable? Also yes.

Why do you keep repeating the same lies about a man who has just been murdered? He was a devout Christian who believed that all killing and violence is wrong. One of the reasons he became so well known in the US was because he would go to university campuses and debate calmly with people who disagreed with him, and often insulted and shouted and insulted him. He believed that people with opposing views should be able to sit down together and talk about their views calmly and that only by listening to each other's views would there be increased understanding and less violence.

Has anyone on this thread actually said his murder was justified? I don't think anyone has said that.

The point is that he actively campaigned for gun rights, and thus in one sense helped to facilitate the tragedy of his own death.

I don't think anyone on this thread has said that he deserved to die for what he said. If they have then for god's sake report it as that's appalling.

The "problem", if you will, with Charlie Kirk is that he is very publicly on record saying that gun deaths are an acceptable price to pay for gun ownership (video link below).

We'll never know if he'd count his own death as one of those "acceptable" murders or not.

The entire thing is bloody awful and terribly sad for his family.

x.com/Ronxyz00/status/1965872119604289791?t=wjUjRugxDDzBf9dz8pSNLg&s=19

I think most of us are sickened and shocked by the manner, in which he was killed. If you're untouched by that, there's something wrong with you. I would have thought most people have seen that video.

I have never been so disgusted with mumsnetters as I was seeing the truly vile comments on the thread that was removed. I have always been on the left but I am sick to my stomach of the authoritarian #bekind left, who call everyone who doesn't agree with them, or who wants an honest debate, a nazi or fascist. That's the hate and it is violent and dangerous. Whoever said above they think antifa has infiltrated mumsnet, I think you're half right. The problem is that its not a small splinter group, it is the authoritarian, woke left. It's become mainstream in the left. I just hope people wake up. Honest debate and free speech is essential.

You really think anti-abortion beliefs aren't abhorrent? Just because they're common, it doesn't mean it's okay. This man did not even believe in exceptions for rape. Don't you think it's insanely cruel to force a woman who has been sexually assaulted to carry the child of her rapist? It is cruel anyway, but that just adds another layer. To me, it says everything I need to know about his views on women, and yes, for me, those views are abhorrent.

Hmm maybe, but you’ve had your fair share of serving politicians murdered - by gun and knife.

Have you got a source for your claim that he thought killing people was perfectly acceptable?

There was nothing peaceful about the way he chose to share his views.

He was not a peaceful protestor.