4 ms·

In some cases, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_actions_for_commentary_on_the_assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org

In some cases, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_actions_for_commentary_on_the_assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_actions_for_comme... > Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that any non-citizens who celebrated Kirk's death would be immediately deported… > Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated on Katie Miller's podcast and in subsequent Department of Justice announcements that she intended to "target" speech against Kirk following his death as hate speech… Plus teachers in public schools and universities.

viggity 1y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Except people are often being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim. The First Amendment doesn't apply to only citizens.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    Is that supposed to be a problem or a counter point or something? It doesn't matter what ideological whims someone is espousing, people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants That applies to violating the out-of-classroom First Amendment rights of publicly employed teachers by their publicly employed management at the urging of the federal government, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independe... "The Court famously opined, 'It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.'"
      - potato3732842 1y ago
        If an entry level commissioned officer can be expected to keep it in their pants than an entry level teacher can too. Yeah it's a first amendment issue depending on where through the gray area the line is drawn but the .gov runs right through the gray areas of violating rights all the time, I don't really see the big deal if it does it to it's own cogs.
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        There's a very, very long standing specific exception for members of the military (subject to the UCMJ) that is not present for teachers.
        potato3732842 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > non-political government office holders ought to not weigh in on politics They have the clear First Amendment right to do so on their own time. I mean, I hold the opinion that people "ought not to" be fans of Charlie Kirk. But you'd correctly object if I enforced that opinion with government power. > Before your ilk became dominant in public discourse… Yikes.
        potato3732842 1y ago
        >They have the clear First Amendment right to do so on their own time. They don't have a right to a government job. Are you fine with CPS employees espousing absurd opinions about the fitness of homosexuals to be parents? Because that's the door this opens. Think a few steps ahead. If you wanna spew politics and keep your LEO or teaching job get elected sheriff or school board.
        1y ago
  - adamtaylor_13 1y ago
    Please cite a single example of someone being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim without any celebratory tone.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      https://www.kbtx.com/2025/09/22/teacher-aide-files-federal-lawsuit-after-she-was-allegedly-fired-over-charlie-kirk-post/ https://www.kbtx.com/2025/09/22/teacher-aide-files-federal-l... The post is reproduced in the article, in its apparent entirety. Zero celebration I can detect. Now what?
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        The immediate aftermath of someone's death is not the time to critique them, gently or not. Total lack of decorum and social sense. Not fit to teach young children.
      - adamtaylor_13 1y ago
        Very interesting. I stand corrected. I will note, however, that this is literally the only example I've seen of someone getting fired for a legitimately non-celebratory remark. We've got a legal system for stuff like that. For every single example you could give me, I can give you at least a thousand counterexamples. 99.9% of all the folks being fired are getting fired for being reprehensible.
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        The fact that finding a responsive example was so easy doesn’t give you a moments pause? Here’s another. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2025/09/22/ball-state-employee-fired-over-charlie-kirk-post-sues-university/86290047007/ https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2025/09/22/bal...
        adamtaylor_13 1y ago
        Eh, that one is worse than the first, and while not "celebratory", certainly shows a lack of judgement and character. I'd fire someone for this, too. This has less to do with free speech and more to do with revealing yourself to be an insensitive asshole. The man was murdered in front of his children, and this woman's instinct is defamation of character. She's continuing to repeat the lie that Charlie Kirk "excused the deaths of children in the name of the Second Amendment".
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    The first amendment should only apply to citizens. I understand that current case law says it applies to everyone, but I think that is a misstep that we can & should correct.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      So forced religious conversions for green card holders should be legal? That's a take, I guess.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        [flagged]
  - viggity 1y ago
    Does the second amendment apply to non-citizens? I'm against the government jailing a visa holder for their speech, but revoking their visa is not jail.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > Does the second amendment apply to non-citizens? There's some current disagreement on that in the courts after Bruen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Ass%27n_v._Bruen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pisto...)! https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/24-1534/24-1534-2025-07-16.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/24... We'll see. There is… little disagreement on this aspect of the First/Fourth/Fifth/etc., though. > revoking their visa is not jail The First Amendment protects you from non-jail government consequences just fine, for obvious reasons - "we're fining you $1M for your speech" would have just as much impact.
- steve_adams_86 1y ago
  Do you think a lot of people in power should be fired then? A lot of the current admin is guilty of behaviour in similarly poor taste.
southernplaces7 1y ago
Since the very clear, repeatedly court-upheld, very specific wording of the 1st amendment protects free speech for anyone at all residing inside the United States (Yes, even including illegal immigrants, not to mention residents and visitors, though by voicing a politically disliked opinion they might risk becoming fast-track targets for deportation through other "formal" justifications) and also offers no legal classification for what exactly "hate speech" is, both of these lying, corrupt, inept, would-be parrots of Tinpot Trump are at least legally wrong. It's amusing on the one hand, considering the hatred their very boss and most of the MAGA types poured on cancel culture and its notions of speech that shouldn't be allowed as hate speech, only to now reveal one more show of whining, gross hypocrisy. On the other hand it's also deeply worrisome, to see key enforcers of federal U.S. law being so completely mendacious and cavalier about the actual legal part of their jobs in that very same territory.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Cancel culture won. Conservatives are not being hypocritical for having been against it and now for it. If your opponent is using an effective weapon and you don't also pick up that weapon, you will lose.
  - theossuary 1y ago
    Republicans started cancel culture. It really gained steam in 2001 when they cancelled the Dixie Chicks for being anti-war (turns out they were right). So I guess you're right, the left adopted it after realizing they'd lose if they didn't use such an effective weapon against fascists.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        "When we do it, it doesn't count."

viggity 1y ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 1y ago
Except people are often being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim. The First Amendment doesn't apply to only citizens.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  Is that supposed to be a problem or a counter point or something? It doesn't matter what ideological whims someone is espousing, people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants That applies to violating the out-of-classroom First Amendment rights of publicly employed teachers by their publicly employed management at the urging of the federal government, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independe... "The Court famously opined, 'It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.'"
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      If an entry level commissioned officer can be expected to keep it in their pants than an entry level teacher can too. Yeah it's a first amendment issue depending on where through the gray area the line is drawn but the .gov runs right through the gray areas of violating rights all the time, I don't really see the big deal if it does it to it's own cogs.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        There's a very, very long standing specific exception for members of the military (subject to the UCMJ) that is not present for teachers.
        potato3732842 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > non-political government office holders ought to not weigh in on politics They have the clear First Amendment right to do so on their own time. I mean, I hold the opinion that people "ought not to" be fans of Charlie Kirk. But you'd correctly object if I enforced that opinion with government power. > Before your ilk became dominant in public discourse… Yikes.
        potato3732842 1y ago
        >They have the clear First Amendment right to do so on their own time. They don't have a right to a government job. Are you fine with CPS employees espousing absurd opinions about the fitness of homosexuals to be parents? Because that's the door this opens. Think a few steps ahead. If you wanna spew politics and keep your LEO or teaching job get elected sheriff or school board.
        1y ago
- adamtaylor_13 1y ago
  Please cite a single example of someone being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim without any celebratory tone.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    https://www.kbtx.com/2025/09/22/teacher-aide-files-federal-lawsuit-after-she-was-allegedly-fired-over-charlie-kirk-post/ https://www.kbtx.com/2025/09/22/teacher-aide-files-federal-l... The post is reproduced in the article, in its apparent entirety. Zero celebration I can detect. Now what?
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      The immediate aftermath of someone's death is not the time to critique them, gently or not. Total lack of decorum and social sense. Not fit to teach young children.
    - adamtaylor_13 1y ago
      Very interesting. I stand corrected. I will note, however, that this is literally the only example I've seen of someone getting fired for a legitimately non-celebratory remark. We've got a legal system for stuff like that. For every single example you could give me, I can give you at least a thousand counterexamples. 99.9% of all the folks being fired are getting fired for being reprehensible.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        The fact that finding a responsive example was so easy doesn’t give you a moments pause? Here’s another. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2025/09/22/ball-state-employee-fired-over-charlie-kirk-post-sues-university/86290047007/ https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2025/09/22/bal...
        adamtaylor_13 1y ago
        Eh, that one is worse than the first, and while not "celebratory", certainly shows a lack of judgement and character. I'd fire someone for this, too. This has less to do with free speech and more to do with revealing yourself to be an insensitive asshole. The man was murdered in front of his children, and this woman's instinct is defamation of character. She's continuing to repeat the lie that Charlie Kirk "excused the deaths of children in the name of the Second Amendment".
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  The first amendment should only apply to citizens. I understand that current case law says it applies to everyone, but I think that is a misstep that we can & should correct.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    So forced religious conversions for green card holders should be legal? That's a take, I guess.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      [flagged]
- viggity 1y ago
  Does the second amendment apply to non-citizens? I'm against the government jailing a visa holder for their speech, but revoking their visa is not jail.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > Does the second amendment apply to non-citizens? There's some current disagreement on that in the courts after Bruen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Ass%27n_v._Bruen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pisto...)! https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/24-1534/24-1534-2025-07-16.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/24... We'll see. There is… little disagreement on this aspect of the First/Fourth/Fifth/etc., though. > revoking their visa is not jail The First Amendment protects you from non-jail government consequences just fine, for obvious reasons - "we're fining you $1M for your speech" would have just as much impact.
steve_adams_86 1y ago
Do you think a lot of people in power should be fired then? A lot of the current admin is guilty of behaviour in similarly poor taste.

southernplaces7 1y ago

Since the very clear, repeatedly court-upheld, very specific wording of the 1st amendment protects free speech for anyone at all residing inside the United States (Yes, even including illegal immigrants, not to mention residents and visitors, though by voicing a politically disliked opinion they might risk becoming fast-track targets for deportation through other "formal" justifications) and also offers no legal classification for what exactly "hate speech" is, both of these lying, corrupt, inept, would-be parrots of Tinpot Trump are at least legally wrong. It's amusing on the one hand, considering the hatred their very boss and most of the MAGA types poured on cancel culture and its notions of speech that shouldn't be allowed as hate speech, only to now reveal one more show of whining, gross hypocrisy. On the other hand it's also deeply worrisome, to see key enforcers of federal U.S. law being so completely mendacious and cavalier about the actual legal part of their jobs in that very same territory.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Cancel culture won. Conservatives are not being hypocritical for having been against it and now for it. If your opponent is using an effective weapon and you don't also pick up that weapon, you will lose.
- theossuary 1y ago
  Republicans started cancel culture. It really gained steam in 2001 when they cancelled the Dixie Chicks for being anti-war (turns out they were right). So I guess you're right, the left adopted it after realizing they'd lose if they didn't use such an effective weapon against fascists.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      "When we do it, it doesn't count."