It was the *celebrating*. Celebrating an ASSASSINATION. And then to 'justify' it, the left began the dehumanizing verbiage: bigot, racist, fascist, misogynist (seriously???), and 'pedo supporter', 'rapist supporter', 'nazi'. All based on lies. Lies that the left invented and retold, and retold, and retold.
Go look on FB at the *vile* names they are using for Erika Kirk. All because A) 'they' don't think she is grieving 'properly' (i.e. white pantsuit, full make up, jewelry) and B) she was married to Charlie - who they now assign all the above names to.
We don't need new censorship arguments, but I can certainly accept that we need a new definition for "Humanity".
We need to not give the concept "hate speech" the legitimacy of even using it. There is no such thing as "hate speech" - it was a concept devised by left-wing academics to delegitimize certain points of view, to make it easier to try to justify censoring it.
Just as Charlie Kirk said, there is no such thing.
Look at how "hate crimes" - which punish motivation, or thought, rather than behavior - first snuck into jurisprudence, and are now largely accepted - despite clearly violating the Fifth Amendment's ban on self-incrimination. There is simply no way to charge, much less convict, someone of a "hate crime" or "bias crime" without introducing their own words against them.
We need to avoid falling into the trap of arguing that this or that is or isn't "hate speech."
The simple answer is, "No such thing exists - next question please."
This downward spiral started when we allowed leftists, as Marxists always do, to manipulate and invert language to fit their desired goals.
We cannot validate the concept of "hate speech", even in rebutting their argument. It is such a broad and nebulous concept that they can use it to fit into any situation. Same with "harm", "violence" or "food insecurity". Force them to state what they mean with clear and mutually acceptable definitions.
The best quote about free speech that i have heard is “Free speech is its own antidote.” (Susan Jacoby, NY Times. 1978, “Why I am a Free Speech Junkie” - the full quote is “You can’t O’D on free speech because free speech is its own best antidote.”)
I’m curious. What kind of punishment did Walsh and Paul advocate for? If a school district fires a teacher for offensive speech, that’s legit to me if parents can no longer trust that teacher with their children. If a private company fires an employee, that’s legit too should be okay as long as it’s clearly in the workers’ agreement or contract that the company has that right.
Those actions are not the same as the government arresting someone for offensive speech.
Free speech applies to all speech (excluding "true threats", defamation, perjury, blackmail, or "true incitement")
Very interesting. Does "hate speech" amounts to "false-or mock- incitement" "false-or mock- threats" ? If yes, what is the (sometime very tiny) difference between "true" and "false" threat, "true" and "false" incitement?
Despite paradoxically condemning "disorderly conduct", and disturbance of public order, which both should apply to hate speech, the American approach may be interesting on the long run, but the European approach is more conservative. Here in Europe "hate speech" amounts as true threats or true incitement. Public order and public safety are put first.
People who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death also offered names for who should be next. That crossed the line. That incites violence. That deserves cancellation. Saying I’m glad he died, is ugly, stupid, narcissistic and abhorrent. But it comes under free speech and should be lambasted but left alone, perhaps for they, themselves, to be shamed by it when, and if, they finally grow up.
No. No. No!! This is precisely the wrong argument. By bringing the concept of "hate speech" into our response, we validate this false premise.
We need to stop using the phrase “Hate Speech” altogether. There is no such concept in law. It is shorthand for speech that someone MAY find offensive, but it is wholly subjective.
We need to challenge the concept of “hate speech” every time it is raised.
The argument for free speech is simply that the government is prohibited from regulating any speech that does not incite immediate and directed physical violence.
We must also dismiss any equation of speech to violence.
The relationship between free speech and consequences ensuing from such speech has also been confabulated. In other words, “I can say whatever I want with impunity” is not a thing. Case in point, I have interviewed scores of applicants for positions of teacher, school counselor, and school administrator. Beyond the curriculum vitae, employment would be contingent upon benefiting students and families. Once hired, personal choices most certainly factored into their continuing employment. The employees were always free to say and do what they want, but they might have to do it elsewhere.
I think one of the biggest arguments for ensuring 'hate speech' doesn't become criminalised is to look at what is happening in the UK where there is such a concept. The legal system now includes things like Non Crime Hate Incidents and their use has been weaponized by a certain small group of activists. You can see this in the arrest of Graham Linehan for 3 tweets and the fact that Helen Joyce discovered she had a crime recorded against her name which she had no idea about. https://thecritic.co.uk/how-i-was-secretly-logged-as-a-criminal-by-police/ is her piece in the Critic and it bears reading. Most Americans I think will find it chilling.
What America does not want to do is to stumble down the road to totalitarianism.
It is all about the Brandenburg test limits and when does speech cross over. The UK does not have the Brandenburg test and the Free Speech Union is campaigning to get something like this.
It is also about when do dehumanizing comments fall foul of standards which institutions properly expect certain people to uphold.
The interesting case is the president-elect of the Oxford Union -- one of the oldest debating societies and a place where Kirk had spoken recently. The president-elect actually debated him. Can someone like that celebrate a death and remain in office as the post is supposed to be upholding the right to debate and not using the ultimate censor? Many people think no and the outraged Life members are running a recall campaign. I think he should surely reconsider his position and reflect if he can remain. If he does decide to remain, he ensure very robust debates with proper protection for all. Lord Young who runs the FSU thinks he should remain, after writing something thought about why the debate is vital which is widely circulated and ensuring a debate on if political violence is ever justified. Lord Young has offered to be on the side arguing that it isn't.
The only way people learn what is acceptable in a society is to be taught where the boundaries are and why they exist. Why political violence is never justified.
It wasn't the 'speech' that was offensive.
It was the *celebrating*. Celebrating an ASSASSINATION. And then to 'justify' it, the left began the dehumanizing verbiage: bigot, racist, fascist, misogynist (seriously???), and 'pedo supporter', 'rapist supporter', 'nazi'. All based on lies. Lies that the left invented and retold, and retold, and retold.
Go look on FB at the *vile* names they are using for Erika Kirk. All because A) 'they' don't think she is grieving 'properly' (i.e. white pantsuit, full make up, jewelry) and B) she was married to Charlie - who they now assign all the above names to.
We don't need new censorship arguments, but I can certainly accept that we need a new definition for "Humanity".
We need to not give the concept "hate speech" the legitimacy of even using it. There is no such thing as "hate speech" - it was a concept devised by left-wing academics to delegitimize certain points of view, to make it easier to try to justify censoring it.
Just as Charlie Kirk said, there is no such thing.
Look at how "hate crimes" - which punish motivation, or thought, rather than behavior - first snuck into jurisprudence, and are now largely accepted - despite clearly violating the Fifth Amendment's ban on self-incrimination. There is simply no way to charge, much less convict, someone of a "hate crime" or "bias crime" without introducing their own words against them.
We need to avoid falling into the trap of arguing that this or that is or isn't "hate speech."
The simple answer is, "No such thing exists - next question please."
Exactly!
This downward spiral started when we allowed leftists, as Marxists always do, to manipulate and invert language to fit their desired goals.
We cannot validate the concept of "hate speech", even in rebutting their argument. It is such a broad and nebulous concept that they can use it to fit into any situation. Same with "harm", "violence" or "food insecurity". Force them to state what they mean with clear and mutually acceptable definitions.
The best quote about free speech that i have heard is “Free speech is its own antidote.” (Susan Jacoby, NY Times. 1978, “Why I am a Free Speech Junkie” - the full quote is “You can’t O’D on free speech because free speech is its own best antidote.”)
I’m curious. What kind of punishment did Walsh and Paul advocate for? If a school district fires a teacher for offensive speech, that’s legit to me if parents can no longer trust that teacher with their children. If a private company fires an employee, that’s legit too should be okay as long as it’s clearly in the workers’ agreement or contract that the company has that right.
Those actions are not the same as the government arresting someone for offensive speech.
https://mangaplanet.com/blog/closure-of-manga-planets-digital-platform/
Free speech applies to all speech (excluding "true threats", defamation, perjury, blackmail, or "true incitement")
Very interesting. Does "hate speech" amounts to "false-or mock- incitement" "false-or mock- threats" ? If yes, what is the (sometime very tiny) difference between "true" and "false" threat, "true" and "false" incitement?
Despite paradoxically condemning "disorderly conduct", and disturbance of public order, which both should apply to hate speech, the American approach may be interesting on the long run, but the European approach is more conservative. Here in Europe "hate speech" amounts as true threats or true incitement. Public order and public safety are put first.
That Time the Washington Post Wanted to Run My OP-ED but I Didn’t Feel Like Getting Murdered.
Oh wait, that was this morning.
https://open.substack.com/pub/mnpul8r/p/that-time-the-washington-post-wanted?r=6ils0s&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
People who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death also offered names for who should be next. That crossed the line. That incites violence. That deserves cancellation. Saying I’m glad he died, is ugly, stupid, narcissistic and abhorrent. But it comes under free speech and should be lambasted but left alone, perhaps for they, themselves, to be shamed by it when, and if, they finally grow up.
No. No. No!! This is precisely the wrong argument. By bringing the concept of "hate speech" into our response, we validate this false premise.
We need to stop using the phrase “Hate Speech” altogether. There is no such concept in law. It is shorthand for speech that someone MAY find offensive, but it is wholly subjective.
We need to challenge the concept of “hate speech” every time it is raised.
The argument for free speech is simply that the government is prohibited from regulating any speech that does not incite immediate and directed physical violence.
We must also dismiss any equation of speech to violence.
The relationship between free speech and consequences ensuing from such speech has also been confabulated. In other words, “I can say whatever I want with impunity” is not a thing. Case in point, I have interviewed scores of applicants for positions of teacher, school counselor, and school administrator. Beyond the curriculum vitae, employment would be contingent upon benefiting students and families. Once hired, personal choices most certainly factored into their continuing employment. The employees were always free to say and do what they want, but they might have to do it elsewhere.
I think one of the biggest arguments for ensuring 'hate speech' doesn't become criminalised is to look at what is happening in the UK where there is such a concept. The legal system now includes things like Non Crime Hate Incidents and their use has been weaponized by a certain small group of activists. You can see this in the arrest of Graham Linehan for 3 tweets and the fact that Helen Joyce discovered she had a crime recorded against her name which she had no idea about. https://thecritic.co.uk/how-i-was-secretly-logged-as-a-criminal-by-police/ is her piece in the Critic and it bears reading. Most Americans I think will find it chilling.
What America does not want to do is to stumble down the road to totalitarianism.
It is all about the Brandenburg test limits and when does speech cross over. The UK does not have the Brandenburg test and the Free Speech Union is campaigning to get something like this.
It is also about when do dehumanizing comments fall foul of standards which institutions properly expect certain people to uphold.
The interesting case is the president-elect of the Oxford Union -- one of the oldest debating societies and a place where Kirk had spoken recently. The president-elect actually debated him. Can someone like that celebrate a death and remain in office as the post is supposed to be upholding the right to debate and not using the ultimate censor? Many people think no and the outraged Life members are running a recall campaign. I think he should surely reconsider his position and reflect if he can remain. If he does decide to remain, he ensure very robust debates with proper protection for all. Lord Young who runs the FSU thinks he should remain, after writing something thought about why the debate is vital which is widely circulated and ensuring a debate on if political violence is ever justified. Lord Young has offered to be on the side arguing that it isn't.
The only way people learn what is acceptable in a society is to be taught where the boundaries are and why they exist. Why political violence is never justified.