5 ms·

Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. People aren't "making comments," they're celebrating the murder of a man whose opinions they disagreed with.

Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. People aren't "making comments," they're celebrating the murder of a man whose opinions they disagreed with. Many Americans are waking up to realize that a large number of people they considered friends and colleagues would revel in their death if they let their political opinions be heard. I would 100% fire someone for celebrating murder. Sorry, call me old-fashioned, but I believe in hiring people of integrity, and I will fire you if I find out you don't have any.

throwaway-11-1 1y ago
[flagged]
- adamtaylor_13 1y ago
  It's clear you've never even watched the very videos you claim to be citing. 1a. He's referencing DEI, citing how it debases people. He literally says, _in the video_, "I don't want to have these thoughts, but that's what DEI does." I know you won't go watch it, but you're just parroting a false statement that Charlie Kirk never made. 1b. He never said that. He said that Black families had better standards of living before the Civil Rights Act, referencing both household incomes, rates of fatherlessness, and crime rates. All objective facts that are true. It's hardly racist to point out how America is not getting better for black Americans. 2. I've not heard this one. Feel free to cite a source and I'll take a look. 3. I've also not heard this one. Once again, I'll go look if you'd like to provide sources.
  - throwaway-11-1 1y ago
    1a. Ok so what exactly did he mean by “I want someone ‘cookie cutter’ not ‘Laqueesha James’. 1b. Is the implication allowing race based discrimination for hiring and voting considerations would improve black families’ material conditions? 2. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna191224 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna191224 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_... For real have you been in a coma?
thorncorona 1y ago
As the joke goes, in soviet Russia you are also free to criticize America.
ceejayoz 1y ago
> Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech requires freedom from government consequences. I have freedom of speech still if you say "I don't like your speech"; I don't have it if the cops say "I'm arresting you for your speech". > I would 100% fire someone for celebrating murder. And you can. You can also skip their birthday party. But "I'm glad so-and-so is dead" largely can't be a reason to, say, lose your drivers' license, social security benefits, or government employment, because the First Amendment applies to government specifically. Facebook, Google, the grocery store, etc. have never been subject to the First Amendment. (People can, and do, get fired for espousing Charlie Kirk's beliefs, too. That's free speech/association for you.)
- adamtaylor_13 1y ago
  > "I'm glad so-and-so is dead" largely can't be a reason to, say, lose your drivers' license, social security benefits, or government employment, because the First Amendment applies to government specifically. Unless I'm mistaken, that's not happening. If it is, it's wrong and should be corrected.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    In Jimmy Kimmel's case, the FCC chair threatened ABC's broadcasting licensure to pressure them to punish his (very, very mild, incidentally) protected speech.
    - adamtaylor_13 1y ago
      I don't believe that the FCC threatening ABC's broadcasting license has anything to do with free speech. There were murmurs about lawsuits for defamation of character all over Twitter. I'm no lawyer, I don't claim to know if that's even possible. But it's clear that with the emotional tension of the situation, ABC wasn't about to get itself in legal trouble over a second-rate, late-night show host. So, while the FCC may have been threatening, we have a legal system designed to prevent such over-steps of power, should they occur. It seems pretty clear ABC wanted no part of the storm that was brewing.

throwaway-11-1 1y ago

[flagged]

adamtaylor_13 1y ago
It's clear you've never even watched the very videos you claim to be citing. 1a. He's referencing DEI, citing how it debases people. He literally says, _in the video_, "I don't want to have these thoughts, but that's what DEI does." I know you won't go watch it, but you're just parroting a false statement that Charlie Kirk never made. 1b. He never said that. He said that Black families had better standards of living before the Civil Rights Act, referencing both household incomes, rates of fatherlessness, and crime rates. All objective facts that are true. It's hardly racist to point out how America is not getting better for black Americans. 2. I've not heard this one. Feel free to cite a source and I'll take a look. 3. I've also not heard this one. Once again, I'll go look if you'd like to provide sources.
- throwaway-11-1 1y ago
  1a. Ok so what exactly did he mean by “I want someone ‘cookie cutter’ not ‘Laqueesha James’. 1b. Is the implication allowing race based discrimination for hiring and voting considerations would improve black families’ material conditions? 2. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna191224 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna191224 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_... For real have you been in a coma?

thorncorona 1y ago

As the joke goes, in soviet Russia you are also free to criticize America.

ceejayoz 1y ago

> Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech requires freedom from government consequences. I have freedom of speech still if you say "I don't like your speech"; I don't have it if the cops say "I'm arresting you for your speech". > I would 100% fire someone for celebrating murder. And you can. You can also skip their birthday party. But "I'm glad so-and-so is dead" largely can't be a reason to, say, lose your drivers' license, social security benefits, or government employment, because the First Amendment applies to government specifically. Facebook, Google, the grocery store, etc. have never been subject to the First Amendment. (People can, and do, get fired for espousing Charlie Kirk's beliefs, too. That's free speech/association for you.)

adamtaylor_13 1y ago
> "I'm glad so-and-so is dead" largely can't be a reason to, say, lose your drivers' license, social security benefits, or government employment, because the First Amendment applies to government specifically. Unless I'm mistaken, that's not happening. If it is, it's wrong and should be corrected.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  In Jimmy Kimmel's case, the FCC chair threatened ABC's broadcasting licensure to pressure them to punish his (very, very mild, incidentally) protected speech.
  - adamtaylor_13 1y ago
    I don't believe that the FCC threatening ABC's broadcasting license has anything to do with free speech. There were murmurs about lawsuits for defamation of character all over Twitter. I'm no lawyer, I don't claim to know if that's even possible. But it's clear that with the emotional tension of the situation, ABC wasn't about to get itself in legal trouble over a second-rate, late-night show host. So, while the FCC may have been threatening, we have a legal system designed to prevent such over-steps of power, should they occur. It seems pretty clear ABC wanted no part of the storm that was brewing.