4 hours ago, Wrwest said:

In order to honor Charlie Kirk's defense of "free speech" we are going to fire/harass anyone having anything negative to say about him. Hmm, sounds reasonable and logical to me. Wait, what?!

Even people that just are posting what Charlie Kirk had said or re posting his videos are being a target now.

 

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

In the case you mentioned above, there is no deterrent for them not to continue hurting you or someone else. There is only the application of your belief in what actions for you are right and what actions are wrong. 

 

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. 

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

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. 

Like jan 6 right?

 

3 hours ago, WDSmart said:

As far as I'm concerned, many of the Charlie Kirk quotes I've seen are hate speech (racist/misogynistic/anti-LBGT/anti-trans),

then lets have some examples,  

45 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

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.

 

Oh I see the angle now. Thanks for clarifying.

 

I think the question would simply be if an objective person would interpret the words as inciting violence or intended to incite violence. So even if the person claims they did not intend to incite violence, if their words, on the objective test, to an objective person would incite violence then this intention is inferred.

 

We can't extract the thoughts of a person, we can only say, whether an objective person would see the words as intended to incite violence.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Smokin Joe said:

 

That comment just proves you have no idea what the Constitutional right to free speech means.

 

There are many other workplace protections for employees, but the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech is not one of them.

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

5 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

And open borders? Who's working in factories? Who's working on farms?

So you're in favour of importing people from poor countries to do farm and factory work for rich whiteys? Doesn't sound very ethical for a lefty. 

2 minutes ago, jvs said:

Like jan 6 right?

 

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. 

4 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

4 hours ago, WDSmart said:

As far as I'm concerned, many of the Charlie Kirk quotes I've seen are hate speech (racist/misogynistic/anti-LBGT/anti-trans),

then lets have some examples,  

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

20 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

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

As expected you can't quote any

29 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

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

 

The 1st Amendment only applies to the Government not restricting freedom of speech.

 

It does not apply to employers. It never has. 

1 minute ago, Bday Prang said:

22 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

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

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

 

3 minutes ago, Smokin Joe said:

 

The 1st Amendment only applies to the Government not restricting freedom of speech.

 

It does not apply to employers. It never has. 

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. 

Actress Amber Tamblyn has mocked the fact that Charlie Kirk's children saw his execution.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/general-hospital-star-under-fire-for-2-word-comment-about-charlie-kirk-murder/ar-AA1MuHA3

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Actress Amber Tamblyn has mocked the fact that Charlie Kirk's children saw his execution.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/general-hospital-star-under-fire-for-2-word-comment-about-charlie-kirk-murder/ar-AA1MuHA3

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

What is it that you dont understand? The WORLD has had it with the left. In the US, the Democrat brand is radioactive. No one wants anything to do with you.

 

I know that for most of you narcissistic cretins self-relection is impossible. However. You have lefft-leaning corporations and institutions that are firing thousands of their fellow leftists.  Even the corporations are shunning  people who go online and celebrate the murder of someone who was assassinated solely for his political beliefs. 

 

The shot that pulverized the neck of Charlie Kirk was louder than 1968. Far louder. You have no conception of the firestorm you have unleashed. 

 

Your mere presence causes people to be physically ill. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

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

Have you ever been employed in the US? If so then you know that employers don’t ask such questions as it’s illegal and a violation of privacy.

40 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

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. 

I completely agree,

even trumps own chatgpt  on truth social is saying he was wrong on this.

That same gpt rates President Joe Biden's time in office as a six out of ten,and trumps?

2 minutes ago, TDCNINJA said:

What is it that you dont understand? The WORLD has had it with the left. In the US, the Democrat brand is radioactive. No one wants anything to do with you.

 

I know that for most of you narcissistic cretins self-relection is impossible. However. You have lefft-leaning corporations and institutions that are firing thousands of their fellow leftists.  Even the corporations are shunning  people who go online and celebrate the murder of someone who was assassinated solely for his political beliefs. 

 

The shot that pulverized the neck of Charlie Kirk was louder than 1968. Far louder. You have no conception of the firestorm you have unleashed. 

 

Your mere presence causes people to be physically ill. 

 

 

Wow,you sound so worried,why is that?

Could it be that the world has had it with the right rhetoric?

You are so full of hate,relax because it is not worth raising your blood pressure over,Asean Now is just a game,just a drop in the ocean.

Just like our opinions on here,don't take it too seriously.

11 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

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

 

No, she attached an article of a discussion show where one of the guests had argued that children over 12 should witness public executions as that would bring crime down.

 

She is mocking Charlie Kirk, because it is known that his children watched his killing.

 

"Wish granted" refers to children watching public executions.

4 hours ago, angryguy said:

Still the best country in the world by a mile. I dont see people trying to immigrate anywhere else

Well just have a look at how many people are leaving the US now.

19 minutes ago, novacova said:

Have you ever been employed in the US? If so then you know that employers don’t ask such questions as it’s illegal and a violation of privacy.

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. 

When Cancel Culture crosses the road. 

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, she attached an article of a discussion show where one of the guests had argued that children over 12 should witness public executions as that would bring crime down.

 

She is mocking Charlie Kirk, because it is known that his children watched his killing.

 

"Wish granted" refers to children watching public executions.

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

6 hours ago, impulse said:

 

One was speaking to thousands of people at a college campus.  The other was passing counterfeit money and resisting arrest after pushing a gun into a pregnant woman's belly.  With a cocktail of drugs in his blood that would have been fatal to many people.  A reasonable jury would have found that that's what killed him.

 

Can you see the difference there?  George Floyd was a scumbag.  He was not a hero.

 

That is your opinion and that is fine in itself but i do not really see any difference here,i consider both hate speech.

In both cases some one was murdered.

Both should not have happened.

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

To a casual observer, it looks more like you're justifying why it was okay to shoot the guy.  Or to celebrate someone else shooting the guy.

 

Nope. Not at all. That's probably a conclusion that a relatively simple observation would come up with, but if you look into the context of it a bit deeper, I think it's fair to reassess his life, his positions, his platform, and his statements and not lionize the guy and make a saint out of them without examining all those first. 

 

Apparently some people who are rather than skinned are claiming that it's unfair to criticize the guy now that he's dead. I think that's total nonsense. Maybe this is a better time than any to truly examine his life and his legacy. 

7 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Be sure to file that list away in your hate file. As already stated, all taken out of context. 

Yeah, the context was that he really likes black people, but he just doesn't think that they're capable of piloting a plane. Ha. 

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

Yeah, the context was that he really likes black people, but he just doesn't think that they're capable of piloting a plane. Ha. 

 Do you believe in hiring the best pilot available or the best black pilot available?

23 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

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

 

It wasn't Charlie Kirk, it was a discussion round he hosted, where one of the guests said that after Charlie Kirk asked should executions be public to bring crime down.

 

If I understand it correctly she is implying that it was Kirk who wished for children to view public executions, which is of course not true, but she is mocking the fact that it happened to him, he was executed while his children watched.

2 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

 Do you believe in hiring the best pilot available or the best black pilot available?

Imo that is not how it works with hiring people.

It should have nothing to do with skin color or sex for that matter.