WDSmart

If the account of the incident in the post above is true, then I would agree that this dog should be euthanized. But only this dog. Not all Pit Bulls.

Absolutely! I've been saying that for the past year and a half... 😒

Why are extreme right-wing speakers called "activists," and extreme left-wing speakers called "terrorists"? 🤔

I was unable to "LIKE" the post above that is the subject of this forum. I don't know why. I have been an advocate of a Two-State Solution after I read all about the situation, and about a month or so after the Oct 7, 2023 attack.

That's a good question. I'm now almost 80 years old, so when I graduated from college and began looking for a job, that was in the late 1960s or early 1970s. That was also when Affirmative Action was being required to be applied by most large employers. My first IT/computer job was with United Airlines, and yes, I was subject to Affirmative Action and was hired along with about 20 others to attend training in Denver to learn about UAL's computer systems. The 20 were a mix of races and genders that were quite different from the established IT/computer employees. So, yes, you could say I was something similar to a "DEI hire." I am a White, heterosexual male, and we only made up about half of the 20 that were hired.

Revealing the issues Charlie Kirk supported to show he was on the extreme right, and in this case, very much anti-LBGTQ and anti-trans, is not spewing hate. It's providing background information. I don't know anyone who is "celebrating" the assassination. I'm sure there are a few somewhere, but they are not representative of the left, like me. The most I do, which is anything like that, is wonder why so many people on the right are treating this like the assassination of someone who was very important, like an elected member of the House or the Senate.

You, as most right-wingers, don't know how DEI is implemented. In DEI, there first needs to be requirements listed for the position. Only applicants who meet these requirements are eligible to get the position. Then, the racial, gender, and other demographic makeup of the location where the position will be based is compared with the current makeup of the employees in that location. If there is a considerable difference in one or more of these areas, applicants who will help improve the makeup of the company to better match the makeup of the community. This could be applied to a sports team, but the first issue, the requirements, which might be, "We want the best center coming out of college." would be difficult for most applicants to meet. Regular businesses are easy to apply DEI to. They might have a requirement that the position requires someone with a college degree. In that case, an applicant who only has a BA or BS would be just as qualified as someone with a PhD.

Not cooperating? That's not surprising. He's going to be charged with some form of murder and probably many other offenses. He's no dummy. He knows he needs a lawyer to help him work through all this to at least avoid a death sentence.

Yes, I agree with your first sentence above - Kirk believed in meritocracy over DEI. These are racist opinions because he believes Blacks are always less qualified than Whites because of their race. Meritocracy is not a fair system as long as the judgment of merit is being made primarily by one class, in this case, White people. DEI is a much better system than meritocracy, since it is based on facts - percentages. DEI, in fact, attempts to right the wrongs that White-dominated meritocracy has, and continues to enforce, on our society.

DEI

Okay, so "Wish granted" was referring to Charlie Kirk's "wish" that children should be allowed to watch executions? I understand her remark now.

Yes, I worked most of my life in the USA. In the latter part, i worked as an independent contractor and took short-term contrcts all over the world.

I think by "Wish granted," she was only referring to Charlie Kirk's assassination, not that his wife and kids were witnesses to it.

I'm not a legal scholar, but I would believe if your employer called you in and asked you who you supported for in the last presidential election, and you answered, "Harris," and then they said, "In that case, you're fired!", your Freedom of Speech rights have been violated. On the other hand, if after you responded, they said, "Well, our needs have changed and we don't require your services anymore," you could not prove your rights had been violated.

As expected you can't quote any Okay, here are a few that have already been quoted on this site. I downloaded them from a site called "Reader Supported News" (RSN.org). They include references on where they were taken. On race If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified. – The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024 If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine? – The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022 Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more. – The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023 If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action? – The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024 If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously. – The Charlie Kirk Show, 13 July 2023

then lets have some examples, Many have previously been posted on this Forum. I won't repeat them. They include racist and misogynistic statements.

Jan 6 was a clear example of insurrection. Anyone inciting people to storm the Capitol and fight with police is not exercising "free speech," since they are committing violence.

All the articles of the Constitution and its Amendments apply to all residents of the USA (even if they are not citizens).

Nonsense. It is a huge deterrent. That's why petty crime is so low in places like Saudi Arabia compared to say, London. And stop trying to sound like that bald kid out of The Matrix. It's not clever. 😃 My comment was not worded as clearly as it could have been. What I meant was that your actions should never be taken just to deter someone else. Your actions should always be guided by what you believe is right, not as a form of retribution. Yes, I know that some actions a state, or even a person, can take will deter others. That's not a state or a person I would like to live in or be. I would like to live in a state that always acts in the best interests of all its citizens, including those who commit crimes (a socialist state), just as I believe we should always do what we think is the right thing to do, not as a reaction to what someone else did. I remember watching The Matrix, but don't remember the "bald kid." The comment on his photo about the bend in the spoon is interesting, however.

Where are you trying to get at with this interesting detour? I don't consider it a "detour." I thought we were trying to nail down the definition of "Free Speech," and how incitement of violence enters into that. As I mentioned earlier, I believe it would not solely depend on whether or not your speech RESULTED in acts of violence. I think it would all depend on whether or not you INTENDED your speech to incite violence. In that case, your speech, even if it did not result in violence, may NOT be considered Free Speech if the courts believe INCITING violence was your intention. But on the other hand, as stated above, if you spoke with NO INTENTION of inciting violence, then even if violence occurred, that would be considered Free Speech.

And the reverse could be true. You could express something bland, like "I really don't like Trump," that someone else takes offense at and commits violence.

Thankfully, the opinions of the federal courts on that long ago settled point of law - including the Supreme Court- differed from yours. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I don't believe the Supreme Court would rule against someone who was fired because of their expression of free speech.

Tell that to Colin Kapernick Yes, that's a good example. His kneeling during the National Anthem was not intended to incite violence. In fact, it was intended to do just the opposite. I don't remember exactly what happened to him. I know he lost his job as quarterback. If he was fired because of that, he should have sued. Of course, his team's owners could just have said they fired him because of his on-field performance or something else.

I'm not obfuscating. Do you believe that ALL hate speech is intended to incite violence? I don't. I believe some hate speech just expresses the person's hate towards something or someone. Like I said above, I could call Kirk a <deleted>, a liar, a racist, etc., but not intend that to incite violence towards him or anyone else.

I agree with you, but I was only semi-quoting the Amendment. Also, as far as "harassment" and "fighting words," as you've defined them above, they do imply they may result in violence. So, violence, as far as I'm concerned, is a simple definition of speech that is not included in "free speech," would be one that incites violence. And, in fact, I'd amend that to be speech that is INTENDED to incite violence, not all speech that does incite violence.