You seem to misunderstand, which is quite typical from people trying to defend Kirk. You saying that is just your way of avoiding the actual argument. I am challenging the principle you all seem to be defending. I'm not saying Kirk is Hitler. I'm saying your principle is flawed. History provides examples where speech helped create real world harm. Hitler is one example, but there are many others.
- If a gang leader publicly encourages violence against a rival group, we generally recognize that speech can contribute to harm.
- If someone spreads propaganda portraying a minority as dangerous or subhuman, that can increase hostility and violence toward that group.
- If a public figure repeatedly promotes false claims that lead followers to harass or attack people, the speech itself may not be the physical act, but it can still be a causal factor.
Free speech means protection from government censorship in many legal systems. It does not mean freedom from social, professional, moral, or legal consequences when speech causes harm or encourages harmful actions.
no no, we get it quite well. You seem to think people or a group of certain people cant make rational decisions for themselves. Hence why you are more for censorship and lies. and that people should be open to "consequences" for their thoughts or ideas.
But what is also quite dangerous is to repeat or parrot false narratives that can lead to certain people or groups of people to take action against another. ie Charlie kirk. Media or info sources label him in a certain way and people buy into without much thought, spreading it around. It really ties into the principle that you seem to believe. That free speech is not free of consequence. Your 3rd point in bold above. just replace "a public figure" with fake news mainstream media, the left, etc... so yes in a way, his speech had consequences, but also the media/ social media, and the left exercising free speech had consequences aswell. ( see your point above , in bold)
Which brings me back around to this... What exactly was said by charlie kirk that was so "dangerous" that a rational person could hear and decipher for themselves? if you have an example or two let us know, and also why this "fragile" principle of Free speech has consequences is something you seem to celebrate or mock when it involves the death of someone because you dont like what they say. Again give us an example of him inciting violence, or portraying a group as subhuman, or promoting false hoods?
The key word in all of this is rational....