Merged Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University event. / Charlie Kirk Shot And Killed

smartcooky said:
Cobblers.
You have activist former and current members of the Fabian Society in your judiciary, letting terrorists and rapists off with light sentences, while jailing people for posting hurty Tweets.
You had Deputy PM Angela Rayner, who for her entire time in opposition, railed against backhanders and financial corruption among the Tories, then turns around and fiddles her taxes on a second house, and got fires.
You have Rachel Reeves, (Chancellor of the Exchequer FFS) a seriously incompetent nitwiit who keeps making basic maths errors in her public financial announcements.
And don't even get me started with the massive coverup by police and local councils with regard to the rape grooming gangs that have been rife for the last 20 years
Finally, you've got Stasi Starmer wanting to introduce Digital ID card... and using the ghost of Tony ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Blair to promote it.

*** Channelling Berdard Wolley *** - “You might get away with calling it EuroClub Express.”
Click to expand...
What a load of nonsense. :sdl:
 
smartcooky said:
Cobblers.
You have activist former and current members of the Fabian Society in your judiciary, letting terrorists and rapists off with light sentences, while jailing people for posting hurty Tweets.
You had Deputy PM Angela Rayner, who for her entire time in opposition, railed against backhanders and financial corruption among the Tories, then turns around and fiddles her taxes on a second house, and got fires.
You have Rachel Reeves, (Chancellor of the Exchequer FFS) a seriously incompetent nitwiit who keeps making basic maths errors in her public financial announcements.
And don't even get me started with the massive coverup by police and local councils with regard to the rape grooming gangs that have been rife for the last 20 years
Finally, you've got Stasi Starmer wanting to introduce Digital ID card... and using the ghost of Tony ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Blair to promote it.

*** Channelling Berdard Wolley *** - “You might get away with calling it EuroClub Express.”
Click to expand...
Are you drunk?
 
Trevor Lee, a Utah state legislator who is notorious for inflammatory culture-war shenanigans, has introduced legislation to rename Harvey Milk Boulevard in Salt Lake City to Charlie Kirk Boulevard. Normally the county has jurisdiction over the process to name a street. However, if the state passes a law, that naturally supersedes any local ordnance or process. Lee's district is not in Salt Lake City.

Keep in mind that most streets in Salt Lake City don't have names, just numbers in the cartesian coordinate system. There are quite a number of prominent streets that could be given a name in honor of Charlie Kirk, if that's the desire. But this is being proposed so that one victim of political violence is erased in favor of a different victim of political violence. The erasure is the point, not the honor.
 
JayUtah said:
Trevor Lee, a Utah state legislator who is notorious for inflammatory culture-war shenanigans, has introduced legislation to rename Harvey Milk Boulevard in Salt Lake City to Charlie Kirk Boulevard. Normally the county has jurisdiction over the process to name a street. However, if the state passes a law, that naturally supersedes any local ordnance or process. Lee's district is not in Salt Lake City.

Keep in mind that most streets in Salt Lake City don't have names, just numbers in the cartesian coordinate system. There are quite a number of prominent streets that could be given a name in honor of Charlie Kirk, if that's the desire. But this is being proposed so that one victim of political violence is erased in favor of a different victim of political violence. The erasure is the point, not the honor.
Click to expand...
They'll need to put a camera on that sign.
 
Resume said:
They'll need to put a camera on that sign.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It infuriates some conservative members of the legislature that the capital city of their state is progressive. As I mentioned, most of the streets are merely numbered, such as 300 West or 1300 South. Any name a street might have is in addition to its number, which remains a valid address. Named streets include mundane monikers like State, Main, Broadway, West Temple. And the few minor streets that fall between the canonical blocks have names: Edison, Douglas, McClellan, Pierpont. But we have a few boulevards named in honor of people: Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, John Stockton (noted Utah Jazz basketball player), and of course Harvey Milk. Yes, these names follow the theme of the progressive pioneers of our time, in keeping with the city's culture and politics.

If Lee wants to honor Charlie Kirk, there are any number of currently anonymous streets in Salt Lake he could choose. Or he could choose a street in Orem, where Kirk was killed—a fairly conservative stronghold. Or he could choose a street in his own reasonably conservative district of Layton. Despite our general displeasure with our governor, he got quite a lot of points for his impassioned speech when the shooter's arrest was announced. He urged Utahns to "find the off-ramp" away from inflammatory politics. But "owning the libs" is simply the only thing that keeps Trevor Lee going.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
What a load of nonsense. :sdl:
Click to expand...
Nonsense eh?

www.bbc.com

Solicitor claims South Yorkshire Police covered up Rotherham abuse

Police watchdog releases more information about its investigation into South Yorkshire Police.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

www.theguardian.com

Angela Rayner resigns over stamp duty row

Rayner’s departure is deeply damaging to prime minister who had initially stood by her
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

news.sky.com

Political leanings of two judges involved in Epping migrant hotel case - and who they sided with

Lord Justice Bean is an ex-treasurer of the Society of Labour Lawyers and used to chair the Fabian Society, which is affiliated to Labour. Sir Stephen Eyre, the High Court judge who ruled in favour of Epping Forest District Council earlier this month, was a Tory parliamentary candidate.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

www.theguardian.com

‘A hacker’s dream’: Britons on Keir Starmer’s plan for digital ID cards

Views range from concerns over civil liberties and cybersecurity, to welcoming it as a helpful system to streamline services
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
smartcooky said:
Speech doesn't destroy Democracy PEOPLE DO THAT! If your Democracy is so fragile that it can't survive speech, then its too weak to survive very long anyway.


And yet your Founding Fathers held free speech to be so sacrosanct, they chose to make it the very FIRST amendment to the Constitution. They did not even mention Democracy at all in either the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution!

When Benjamin Franklin said“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”, free speech was one of those essential liberties that he was talking about. If you are prepared to give it up for the sake of having a Democracy, then your Democracy is not worth the price. The moment you compromise free speech for ANY reason, you have drawn a line, and enabled never ending arguments over where that line should be. Democracy has to be fought for. Another famous quote comes to mind...

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"
- Wendell Phillips c. 1852
Click to expand...
And the Nazis showed exactly where that attitude leads to.
'I just claimed all Jews were rats. And in a different article claimed we should exterminate rats. And in a different article claimed it would be perfectly understandable that a volksdeutsche would use violence against enemies of the people, but never called for all jews to be exterminated!'

Then again, it's clear the US democracy was too weak to handle the free speech absolutism you espouse. And the end result will be free speech for the regime only.
 
Just in the last couple weeks we've had one Fox News personality call for the murder of the homeless on air and another one call for the bombing or gassing of a UN building in New York, again on air.

The free speech the left mostly has issue with is stuff like that, or POTUS publicly saying immigrants are poisoning our blood, or trans people shouldn't exist. And when millions of people listen to them, attend their rallies, and believe their lies you WILL have some who act on it with harassment, discrimination, and violence. We've seen it over and over and it's why most violent extremism comes from the right.

The free speech the right mostly has issue with is being called white supremacists, nazis, and fascists and the consequences they face from the things they say and do by the private and public sector (non government).

That's not to say there aren't examples of free speech issues or violence from the left but it's like 80/20 right/left
 
The_Animus said:
Just in the last couple weeks we've had one Fox News personality call for the murder of the homeless on air and another one call for the bombing or gassing of a UN building in New York, again on air.

The free speech the left mostly has issue with is stuff like that, or POTUS publicly saying immigrants are poisoning our blood, or trans people shouldn't exist. And when millions of people listen to them, attend their rallies, and believe their lies you WILL have some who act on it with harassment, discrimination, and violence. We've seen it over and over and it's why most violent extremism comes from the right.

The free speech the right mostly has issue with is being called white supremacists, nazis, and fascists and the consequences they face from the things they say and do by the private and public sector (non government).

That's not to say there aren't examples of free speech issues or violence from the left but it's like 80/20 right/left
Click to expand...
Not sure what you want exactly. Think about what would be going on now if there was a law that banned such speech. Who enforces it? Ultimately the executive branch. Colbert and Kimmel would be in jail ny now.
 
Meanwhile, the blowback over Jimmy Kimmel's suspension continues...

deadline.com

Kimmel Corporate Fallout: Threatening Legal Action, Disney Shareholders Want To Know If “Improper Political Or Affiliate” Pressures Went Into Host’s Weeklong Suspension

Kimmel Fallout Continues: Disney Could Be Facing Lawsuit From Shareholders Over Late Night Host's Benching
deadline.com deadline.com

Disney’s stock suffered significant declines in response to the Company’s abrupt decision to suspend Mr. Kimmel and his show, Jimmy Kimmel Live! those “significant declines” in Disney’s stock equal a $4 billion loss to the company’s value. While a single-digit percentage decline in real terms, a $4 billion loss is neither chump nor Trump change for any shareholders.​
 
lobosrul5 said:
Not sure what you want exactly. Think about what would be going on now if there was a law that banned such speech. Who enforces it? Ultimately the executive branch. Colbert and Kimmel would be in jail ny now.
Click to expand...
Exactly! It's a clear case of be careful what you wish for.

Orwell's "1984" It is a warning against, among other things, the suppression of speech. The US is sleepwalking into Orwell's nightmare, and suppression of free speech is the pathway.

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."
 
lobosrul5 said:
Not sure what you want exactly. Think about what would be going on now if there was a law that banned such speech. Who enforces it? Ultimately the executive branch. Colbert and Kimmel would be in jail ny now.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure there is a law against such calls for violence but the right has been slow boiling the frog for a while now and we're so tolerant of violence and fascism that we defend and protect calls for murder and terrorism as free speech.

And yes fascists don't care about the law and selectively enforce it. I'm not sure what your point if. Don't bother with any laws or attempt to hold anyone accountable for their actions because fascists will abuse or ignore laws?
 
smartcooky said:
Exactly! It's a clear case of be careful what you wish for.

Orwell's "1984" It is a warning against, among other things, the suppression of speech. The US is sleepwalking into Orwell's nightmare, and suppression of free speech is the pathway.

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."
Click to expand...

The right is doing this regardless and thenm doing it has nothing to do with condemning public comments about killing the homeless or bombing buildings or that an entire group of people are poisoning the blood of our nation or wanting to hold people accountable for stochastic terrorism.
 
The_Animus said:
I'm pretty sure there is a law against such calls for violence but the right has been slow boiling the frog for a while now and we're so tolerant of violence and fascism that we defend and protect calls for murder and terrorism as free speech.

And yes fascists don't care about the law and selectively enforce it. I'm not sure what your point if. Don't bother with any laws or attempt to hold anyone accountable for their actions because fascists will abuse or ignore laws?
Click to expand...
It has to be a specific call. Like a cable news host saying, go kill the first gay person you see. Him saying, I think stoning gay people sounds awesome. Is legal. There is also the issue of enforcement. The POTUS says it, and the only mechanism is congress to remove him from office. For punishing a media outlet? That's the FCC and the head of the FCC is Trumps buddy.

If we had the laws you want, right now, its very obvious to me that they'd be weaponized against thr left.
 
Last edited:
who decides?
Judges.

Seriously, people who are okay with a judges issuing death penalties think it is a step too far for them to rule over the limits of Free Speech?

Free Speech is not a panacea - it's just one part of what a reasonably free and democratic societies needs, balanced against all the other needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom