Shooting someone through the throat with a high-powered rifle during a university debate certainly seems like an attack on free speech, but maybe I don't have your nuanced understanding of the issue.

▲

ghurtado 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> I don't have your nuanced understanding of the issue.

Let me help unconfuse you, then:

- government swiftly, immediately and directly cancelling a show from a private company because someone said something that's not good for "the party": attack on free speech.

- murder of Charlie Kirk: politically motivated murder by a deranged psycho, which is immediately exploited to AMPLIFY right wing views and cancel left wing ones.

So tell me again, based on what one is currently allowed to say about this very topic: what ideas is the right no longer able to express openly and loudly as a result of this murder?

Don't say "Charlie Kirk": I've heard more of his ideas in recent weeks than I would have if he hadn't been shot.

▲

Andrew_nenakhov 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> government swiftly, immediately and directly cancelling a show from a private company

That appears to be a false statement. Private company made that decision on their own after public pressured it to.

A fitting quote by no other but Mr Kimmel himself, who said this in a very similar situation:

I want to say kudos to my bosses at ABC for doing the right thing and canceling Roseanne’s show today. It’s not an easy thing to do when a show is successful, but it’s the right thing.

▲

djohnston 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> and cancel left wing ones.

"Left ones" being, celebrating murder? Assuming you weren't living under a rock for the past decade, do you think celebrating murder is less severe than right-wing views (critical of BLM, critical of feminism, critical of pro-choice) that were routinely cancelled by left-wing institutions (social media, university) over this time frame?

▲

text0404 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Please tell us how Matthew Dowd celebrated Kirk's murder? Or Kimmel?

Furthermore, celebrating murder is still free speech. For example, we've had to endure years of jokes about the murders of George Floyd and Trayvon Martin, the flame continuously stoked by Charlie Kirk and his colleagues.

Kirk was ultimately "cancelled" by the same society that he fomented. He was against empathy, used his platform to disparage and attack vulnerable groups, against gun control, and literally said that gun deaths are a worthy price for the 2nd amendment. He was a victim of a violent society he actively encouraged and campaigned for. Pointing this out is not celebrating murder.

▲

Andrew_nenakhov 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> and literally said that gun deaths are a worthy price for the 2nd amendment

This is, of course, a lie. By omitting important context you present it as a political point for what you perceive to be your side.

In fact, strict gun control does not prevent political assassinations. It didn't prevent it in Russia, in Japan, nowhere. So all arguments that "he wouldn't get assassinated if we didn't have 2nd amendment" are simply not valid and proven wrong.

Since I think you didn't really read into the full text of a quote in question, I'll provide you a link [0].

[0]: https://cleverjourneys.com/2025/09/15/full-text-of-charlie-k...

	▲	text0404 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Your link doesn't prove me wrong? It's what he said: "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." That's his point of view. He became a victim of gun violence which he said is worth the cost. > This is, of course, a lie. By omitting important context you present it as a political point for what you perceive to be your side. Thanks for projecting! Try to focus on what we're discussing instead of descending into ad hominem. > strict gun control does not prevent political assassinations. It didn't prevent it in Russia, in Japan, nowhere I'm not discussing political assassinations, and neither was Kirk. I'm discussing Kirk's own views on gun violence in the United States and the "cost" of unrestricted access to firearms, of which he himself was a victim. Political assassinations are a small subset of this "cost." Would you like to compare the number of mass shooting events in these countries, or is it too inconvenient that the US is #1 in mass/school shootings?