Pray for Charlie Kirk

[MUBurrow]

I fail to see what freedom of speech has to do with any of this.

[CreightonWarrior]

You spelled Kash wrong.

Im genuinely curious how bad the circumstantial evidence was on the person they arrested that they announced they arrested the shooter and within hours they had already released them and said they were innocent.

[The Sultan]

A person engaging in peaceful political discourse and open debate in the United States was assassinated for it.

This should give all of us pause as Americans.

Freedom of Speech is not only for speech we agree with.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I think the frustrations are that political violence has been occurring quite a lot recently, and much of it is being ignored because it doesn't fit a certain narrative.

Not to mention that yesterday's victim has had a role to play in both rising violence and ignoring its consequences.

Look, I would stand up an applaud if our leaders had the moral courage to tone down the rhetoric and seek a more compromising tone. However my guess is that the violence from one "side" will continue to be ignored, while we stamp out the rights of another.

I hope I am wrong.

[jficke13]

It is a sad day when people celebrate someone being shot for what they say in a country that used to celebrate free speech. Some of you are truly disgusting human beings.

Did you graduate in '88?

[Hards Alumni]

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I think the frustrations are that political violence has been occurring quite a lot recently, and much of it is being ignored because it doesn't fit a certain narrative.

Not to mention that yesterday's victim has had a role to play in both rising violence and ignoring its consequences.

Look, I would stand up an applaud if our leaders had the moral courage to tone down the rhetoric and seek a more compromising tone. However my guess is that the violence from one "side" will continue to be ignored, while we stamp out the rights of another.

I hope I am wrong.

Unfortunately, you're already right.  There is no suspect in custody, no motive, no anything.  And yet, the leader of our country has decided that it was "radical left violence".  A truly abhorrent disgusting accusation from the President of the United States that will do nothing but pour gasoline on an already dangerous situation.

[forgetful]

Im genuinely curious how bad the circumstantial evidence was on the person they arrested that they announced they arrested the shooter and within hours they had already released them and said they were innocent.

I read somewhere that he was apprehended because he was a known political activist and was at the scene.

[MU82]

Unfortunately, you're already right.  There is no suspect in custody, no motive, no anything.  And yet, the leader of our country has decided that it was "radical left violence".  A truly abhorrent disgusting accusation from the President of the United States that will do nothing but pour gasoline on an already dangerous situation.

Beyond that, he said that liberal criticism of conservatives was "directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today," and he vowed to go after groups that fund or support it.

Shocking that he didn't similarly condemn conservative criticism of liberals for being directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and that he didn't vow to go after conservatives groups that fund or support it.

[wadesworld]

Very first sentence: victim blaming.

Second paragraph:
Sentence one: how magnanimous of you.
Sentence two: you are not sincere about sentence one.
Sentence three: hate is the new shorthand word for stuff one does not agree with.

I've noticed you haven't had anything to say when children in schools get murdered.  Honestly curious, why was this the person whose life meant enough to take a stand?

[Skatastrophy]

Very first sentence: victim blaming.

Second paragraph:
Sentence one: how magnanimous of you.
Sentence two: you are not sincere about sentence one.
Sentence three: hate is the new shorthand word for stuff one does not agree with.

The very first sentence is the core of free speech in America. Punch a Nazi, arrest the person yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, imprison the lechers chatting up kids. There are limits to free speech, and that's not a controversial concept.

The second thought: Just because the world is a better place without hatemongers doesn't mean that they should be murdered. Both things can be true without any cognitive dissonance. For an extreme example: I wish we had the opportunity to imprison and put Hitler on trial for his crimes instead of him taking the easy way out. Murder/suicide isn't the answer. Also, the world is better once certain people are gone.

Edit: Non-sequitur, but it's funny talking to all these debate bros that listened to that community college dropout's podcast. Some of the dumbest rhetoric mostly resonates with their tribe, I suppose. All dog whistles and fallacies. I can't believe so many people are up in arms about a podcaster and not the ~40 kids that have been shot since the beginning of the school year last month.

[MU82]

Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys, reposted to his X account a post from a fellow Jan. 6 defendant calling for "war."

[jficke13]

The very first sentence is the core of free speech in America. Punch a Nazi, arrest the person yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, imprison the lechers chatting up kids. There are limits to free speech, and that's not a controversial concept.

The second thought: Just because the world is a better place without hatemongers doesn't mean that they should be murdered. Both things can be true without any cognitive dissonance. For an extreme example: I wish we had the opportunity to imprison and put Hitler on trial for his crimes instead of him taking the easy way out. Murder/suicide isn't the answer. Also, the world is better once certain people are gone.

Shouting "fire in a crowded theater" is not illegal; it is protected 1st Amendment speech.

That there are limits to the free speech is not controversial. What those limits are, on the other hand, are very controversial.

[Skatastrophy]

Shouting "fire in a crowded theater" is not illegal; it is protected 1st Amendment speech.

That there are limits to the free speech is not controversial. What those limits are, on the other hand, are very controversial.

If there's not a fire and your yelling of "fire" is likely to cause a stampede you'll be arrested. 

Everything has an exception and it makes it hard to discuss things with internet lawyers. :p

[jficke13]

If there's not a fire and your yelling of "fire" is likely to cause a stampede you'll be arrested.

Everything has an exception and it makes it hard to discuss things with internet lawyers. :p

Look it can be a dumb thing to do, but it is not illegal. It was a rhetorical flourish used in one case the justify jailing a person who was protesting the draft, a case that was the absolute high-water mark of the state's power to arrest people for their speech and which was *immediately* and consistently abandoned and walked back.

I do not think you should shout "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. But doing so is not against the law, and repeating the assertion that it is actually makes it difficult to understand what the real restrictions to free speech are and how they function in the real world.

Sorry to be a buzzkill.

[Skatastrophy]

Sorry to be a buzzkill.

I think it's the whole point of the internet. No need to apologize for being correct.

[Badgerhater]

These people highlight the lengthy trend in violence towards political figures, which has been overwhelmingly directed at those on the left.

I suggest you take a visit out of your echo chamber.  There is no shortage of violent rhetoric, actions and crime from the left.

[Hards Alumni]

Shouting "fire in a crowded theater" is not illegal; it is protected 1st Amendment speech.

That there are limits to the free speech is not controversial. What those limits are, on the other hand, are very controversial.

Incorrect.  It is very illegal if it causes panic or harm, which it most likely would.

[Hards Alumni]

I suggest you take a visit out of your echo chamber.  There is no shortage of violent rhetoric, actions and crime from the left.

He said very ironically.

[Skatastrophy]

I suggest you take a visit out of your echo chamber.  There is no shortage of violent rhetoric, actions and crime from the left.

Go ahead and list the recent successful/attempted political assassinations by 'those on the left'.

[jficke13]

Incorrect.  It is very illegal.

Should we go through the Brandenburg Test for incitement? I'm having lots of fun flashbacks to the socratic method we could re-enact. There's only about a hundred prominent first amendment lawyers who've collectively published thousands of articles explaining the whole "fire in a crowded theater" thing, we could just link to one and let people read it for themselves. Or, of course, we could go back to "it's a fun rhetorical flourish and I don't care what actual first amendment jurisprudence says."

In any case, we're distracting from this thread's regularly scheduled event of "should I believe the plain reality of the world being presented to me via evidence" vs "no bro, get out of your bubble, I'm totally right."

[Hards Alumni]

Should we go through the Brandenburg Test for incitement? I'm having lots of fun flashbacks to the socratic method we could re-enact. There's only about a hundred prominent first amendment lawyers who've collectively published thousands of articles explaining the whole "fire in a crowded theater" thing, we could just link to one and let people read it for themselves. Or, of course, we could go back to "it's a fun rhetorical flourish and I don't care what actual first amendment jurisprudence says."

In any case, we're distracting from this thread's regularly scheduled event of "should I believe the plain reality of the world being presented to me via evidence" vs "no bro, get out of your bubble, I'm totally right."

I welcome you to trot down to your local AMC and give it a shot. 

[Pakuni]

Should we go through the Brandenburg Test for incitement? I'm having lots of fun flashbacks to the socratic method we could re-enact. There's only about a hundred prominent first amendment lawyers who've collectively published thousands of articles explaining the whole "fire in a crowded theater" thing, we could just link to one and let people read it for themselves. Or, of course, we could go back to "it's a fun rhetorical flourish and I don't care what actual first amendment jurisprudence says."

720 ILCS 5/26-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 26-1)
    Sec. 26-1. Disorderly conduct.
    (a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he or she knowingly:
        (1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to
       
alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace;
        (2) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any
       
manner to the fire department of any city, town, village or fire protection district a false alarm of fire, knowing at the time of the transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the fire exists;

https://www.ilga.gov/Documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K26-1.htm

[Galway Eagle]

I suggest you take a visit out of your echo chamber.  There is no shortage of violent rhetoric, actions and crime from the left.

Where was all this defensiveness for the following:

Timothy McVeigh's bombing
Minnesota assisinations
Gabrielle Giffords shooting
Buffalo Shooting
Charleston shooting
Unite the right killing
Abortion clinic bombings

Just to name a few. Furthermore university of Maryland ran a study on political violence by political ideology. Right wing domestic terrorism is 45% more likely than left wing. Now the fact that there's any left wing at all is despicable but you're trying to draw an equivalency to deflect blame when there's clearly a significantly bigger problem on one side than the other.

https://ccjs.umd.edu/feature/umd-led-study-shows-disparities-violence-among-extremist-groups

[Galway Eagle]

A person engaging in peaceful political discourse and open debate in the United States was assassinated for it.

This should give all of us pause as Americans.

Freedom of Speech is not only for speech we agree with.

One could take a statement of his such as "gay people should be stoned to death" as a direct threat. That's not political discourse or open debate. If I said badgerhater should be killed that's not me just positing an extreme ideology that's quite literally saying I believe you should die.

[Jay Bee]

One could take a statement of his such as "gay people should be stoned to death" as a direct threat. That's not political discourse or open debate. If I said badgerhater should be killed that's not me just positing an extreme ideology that's quite literally saying I believe you should die.

#FakeNews #Lies

He didn't say that.

[Galway Eagle]

#FakeNews #Lies

He didn't say that.

Ok the direct quote is apparently false, instead he quoted scripture in this podcast mentioning that the Bible says if you lay with another man you should be stoned to death.
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1800678317030564306&currentTweetUser=patriottakes

to rico's point didn't you claim a bunch of #fakenews and #lies yourself about pelosi's husband? Glass houses and what not.