ClaytonB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 10,224
I guess "They" settled this debate for us. See how much simpler it is to live in a world where your Overlords decide everything for you? No arguments!
Searchable database of psychos cheering Charlie Kirk's murder | charliesmurderers.com
- Thread starter ClaytonB
- Start date
I guess "They" settled this debate for us. See how much simpler it is to live in a world where your Overlords decide everything for you? No arguments!
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2020
- Messages
- 4,132
I defend the principle of free speech itself. When figures like Charlie Kirk speak, some hear respect and reasoned disagreement, while others perceive threat or hate. Similarly, with Trump’s call to “peacefully and patriotically” make voices heard, interpretations vary widely—some see it as a call for lawful protest, others as incitement. Several judges have ruled on the purported intent behind Trump’s speech, not merely his literal words, analyzing context, timing, and audience perception to determine if his rhetoric crossed into incitement under the Brandenburg test.
After Charlie’s murder, calls to “tone down rhetoric” emerged, implying that speech itself—not the individual who committed violence—bears responsibility. This conflates speech with action, threatening the essential freedom to express even unpopular or offensive ideas without fear of retribution.
History shows us the dangers of punishing speech based on perceived intent or offense. Jesus was crucified for his message, yet his supporters remained silent out of fear. Today, celebrating punishment or censorship of speech because you disagree with it risks eroding freedom for everyone—including you.
Speech is fundamentally different from violence. Like a gun or alcohol, speech can be misused, but the misuse lies with the user, not the tool. Murder cannot be justified by speech, nor should speech be held culpable for violence.
If we accept celebrating the silencing or firing of someone for their speech, we pave a path of censorship that will inevitably touch all voices. The only way to preserve liberty is to separate our disagreements with speech from calls and acts of violence.
Let's defend the principle that free speech is the cornerstone of a free society—especially when the words are hardest to hear.
After Charlie’s murder, calls to “tone down rhetoric” emerged, implying that speech itself—not the individual who committed violence—bears responsibility. This conflates speech with action, threatening the essential freedom to express even unpopular or offensive ideas without fear of retribution.
History shows us the dangers of punishing speech based on perceived intent or offense. Jesus was crucified for his message, yet his supporters remained silent out of fear. Today, celebrating punishment or censorship of speech because you disagree with it risks eroding freedom for everyone—including you.
Speech is fundamentally different from violence. Like a gun or alcohol, speech can be misused, but the misuse lies with the user, not the tool. Murder cannot be justified by speech, nor should speech be held culpable for violence.
If we accept celebrating the silencing or firing of someone for their speech, we pave a path of censorship that will inevitably touch all voices. The only way to preserve liberty is to separate our disagreements with speech from calls and acts of violence.
Let's defend the principle that free speech is the cornerstone of a free society—especially when the words are hardest to hear.
nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,396
Maybe having a list out there of people who would probably be happy if millions of Americans who are like Charlie Kirk were murdered isn't good to have out there because you are better off not knowing?
You know how sometimes when you learn something and then after you found out you think to yourself geeze I was better off not knowing that?
There's just no way to forget things once you know them you know.
I always like to look on the bright side if I can and this is it.
ClaytonB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 10,224
Yes, much better to leave things like that to Lockheed Martin and Palantir. We should only allow our wise Overlords to know such things because we ourselves cannot be trusted to know what our fellow citizens are actually saying in public. That could turn out very bad.
No, I don't know what that's like because I don't have that CCP-bootlicking reflex that Leftists have. So I don't know what you're referring to.
The setups from the bot are so good they're almost worth it. ALMOST
nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,396
Yes, much better to leave things like that to Lockheed Martin and Palantir. We should only allow our wise Overlords to know such things because we ourselves cannot be trusted to know what our fellow citizens are actually saying in public. That could turn out very bad.
No, I don't know what that's like because I don't have that CCP-bootlicking reflex that Leftists have. So I don't know what you're referring to.
The setups from the bot are so good they're almost worth it. ALMOST
If my country has asshole cancer what good does it do me if I know about it?
I don't know how to cure ASSHOLE cancer do you?
If something is going to kill me and I am powerless to stop it then I can only appeal to a higher authority like God and hope God sorts everything out.
ClaytonB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 10,224
Similar threads
