>Therefore people argue that we have to shame (not imprison or kill) celebrations on attacks on free speech to protect free speech. So what you're saying is "f

>Therefore people argue that we have to shame (not imprison or kill) celebrations on attacks on free speech to protect free speech. So what you're saying is "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences?" Odd. I suspect the same people arguing that now would have been outraged at the very thought before Charlie Kirk's death. Because they celebrate the death of people also practicing free speech all the time while insisting that freedom of speech exists to defend the speech you disagree with, not the speech you agree with. It's just weird how fast their principles turn on a dime when it's one of theirs.