Charlie Kirk Shot

[JohnH]

Trying to figure out who should be cancelled or fired for stuff they say is just standard fare from people with keyboards and microphones. It has been happening for years. Where it gets a little more interesting is when the government uses its power to shut down speech. One of the conservative podcasters spent half his show the other day trying to make a difference between "cancel culture" and calling for people to lose their jobs because of egregiously bad speech, and the other half criticizing the current head of the FCC for possibly using his powers to suppress speech, which is definitely going beyond just "cancel culture."

I find the attempts to pass laws against “hate speech” quite chilling… particularly considering how much Charlie Kirk was against them. Truth doesn’t need a bodyguard.

[temporal1]

Trying to figure out who should be cancelled or fired for stuff they say is just standard fare from people with keyboards and microphones. It has been happening for years. Where it gets a little more interesting is when the government uses its power to shut down speech. One of the conservative podcasters spent half his show the other day trying to make a difference between "cancel culture" and calling for people to lose their jobs because of egregiously bad speech, and the other half criticizing the current head of the FCC for possibly using his powers to suppress speech, which is definitely going beyond just "cancel culture."

I find the attempts to pass laws against “hate speech” quite chilling… particularly considering how much Charlie Kirk was against them. Truth doesn’t need a bodyguard.

Laws are dicey.
Businesses can set policies, esp for work hours, but some go beyond, and some with good reason, for instance, professionals.

i don’t celebrate. but, sober respect is important.

i see lots of conflating and blaming. divisive speculation. no surprise. it’s important to try to remain level headed.

divisve speculation is specially bad. it’s about what has NOT happened, without limit wrt how bad it COULD BE.
this has gone ‘way too far. esp in high politics. it’s amplified fear mongering.

divisive speculation is the opposite of due process or “innocent until proven guilty”. [“guilty, ‘cause i speculate you’re guilty!”]

[Judas Maccabeus]

"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" is the slogan for a new cancel culture. Whether or not the person actually said what their accusers are claiming. And the "consequences" seem to involve doing whatever possible to destroy people's careers and lives without any kind of due process.

I do think people should be responsible for what they say. If I had an employee who celebrated Kirk's death, I would respond exactly the way Ernie would. But I am seeing a lot of things that look like real threats to the First Amendment. If people are afraid to speak, that limits their speech.

As strangers and aliens in this world, we should be careful what we wish for. There are "consequences" for Christians who speak out in many places. These things can be used against us too once they are in place.

And they undoubtedly will, once we land in a war, and we refuse to go along. They were in World War 1.

[Judas Maccabeus]

"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" is the slogan for a new cancel culture. Whether or not the person actually said what their accusers are claiming. And the "consequences" seem to involve doing whatever possible to destroy people's careers and lives without any kind of due process.

I do think people should be responsible for what they say. If I had an employee who celebrated Kirk's death, I would respond exactly the way Ernie would. But I am seeing a lot of things that look like real threats to the First Amendment. If people are afraid to speak, that limits their speech.

As strangers and aliens in this world, we should be careful what we wish for. There are "consequences" for Christians who speak out in many places. These things can be used against us too once they are in place.

I don’t think freedom of speech was ever meant to protect vile and threatening and influential chants and cries for the promotion of evil. This kind of hateful rhetoric was not imaginable to be a growing cancer at the time the first amendment was written. What was the speech “at the time” that there was a concern of being censored?

If it does not protect speech, you consider 'vile" speech that promotes "evil". It protects no speech at all.

[JohnH]

"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" is the slogan for a new cancel culture. Whether or not the person actually said what their accusers are claiming. And the "consequences" seem to involve doing whatever possible to destroy people's careers and lives without any kind of due process.

I do think people should be responsible for what they say. If I had an employee who celebrated Kirk's death, I would respond exactly the way Ernie would. But I am seeing a lot of things that look like real threats to the First Amendment. If people are afraid to speak, that limits their speech.

As strangers and aliens in this world, we should be careful what we wish for. There are "consequences" for Christians who speak out in many places. These things can be used against us too once they are in place.

I don’t think freedom of speech was ever meant to protect vile and threatening and influential chants and cries for the promotion of evil. This kind of hateful rhetoric was not imaginable to be a growing cancer at the time the first amendment was written. What was the speech “at the time” that there was a concern of being censored?

If it does not protect speech, you consider 'vile" speech that promotes "evil". It protects no speech at all.

There is clearly a lack of civic education about what freedom of speech is… the first person who needs a remedial class is Pam Bondi.

Charlie Kirk videos are actually a great source for education on this. He was really opposed to hate speech laws.

[barnhart]

If it does not protect speech, you consider 'vile" speech that promotes "evil". It protects no speech at all.

Valid point. 500 years ago it was considered evil speech to critique the practice of the state church. That was coercively enforced as well. In times like these we would do well to take seriously Jesus' directives to be salt and light in society, that is to reveal sin not control it.

[Ernie]

If it does not protect speech, you consider 'vile" speech that promotes "evil". It protects no speech at all.

Valid point. 500 years ago it was considered evil speech to critique the practice of the state church. That was coercively enforced as well. In times like these we would do well to take seriously Jesus' directives to be salt and light in society, that is to reveal sin not control it.

Is there a difference between making laws to control sin, and having a Christian business that expects employees to abide by certain Christian principles while on or off the clock?

[JohnH]

If it does not protect speech, you consider 'vile" speech that promotes "evil". It protects no speech at all.

Valid point. 500 years ago it was considered evil speech to critique the practice of the state church. That was coercively enforced as well. In times like these we would do well to take seriously Jesus' directives to be salt and light in society, that is to reveal sin not control it.

Is there a difference between making laws to control sin, and having a Christian business that expects employees to abide by certain Christian principles while on or off the clock?

How does one choose what principles to enforce?

[Robert]

*Excluding support for the assassination of Osama bin Laden, which was universally celebrated at the time; technically I had a student worker who made a joke about it, and everyone laughed, because supporting assassinations of people designated by the Empire as an enemy is apparently OK.

I did not celebrate it. I accepted it as his consequence but did not like that it happened. I would rather see him in a court of law trying to defend his actions and ideology.

I am saddened by Charlie Kirk's death for several reasons. None are directly related to my agreement or disagreement of his stances.

[R7ehr]

For myself, it’s a big difference between bin Ladin and Kirk, that one of them “took up the sword and perished by the sword”, and the other did not.