And I would like to add - he rode on a wave of Christian beliefs supposedly advocating for Christian values.
When in reality he is a damagouge that uses Christianity as a vessel.
Ultimately when you take a step back and look at the evangelical movement - Christians all over the world are in complete disgust.
Even the pope is!
But ofc.
The entire world is wrong. Not such a group within a country that has lost its way.

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....

Kinda like how Fox News was sued for 787 Million dollars and had to pay that for lying to their viewers?

Kinda like how Trump gave a speech and then J6'ers stormed the capital and tried to stop the certification of Biden for President?

Once again, FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN FREEDOM FROM CONSEQUENCES.

I don't know how much more simpler I can make this. Say whatever you want, go for it, but I guarantee you won't say the N word in downtown detroit at 12 AM, because YOU KNOW THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES.

It's literally that simple.

Or hey, go tell your boss to fuck off. See how that goes. Once again, there is an expectation of some kind of consequence for your speech, free or not. So spare me your false argument.

just so i have you crystal clear, lets say Joe's employer is offended by what Joe said while not on the job. is it ok for Joe's boss to fire him if he goes viral for a terrible racist verbal only non-violent altercation while not on the job?

because it seems clear to me we're talking past each other tbh. you said what i interpreted as "no limits to free speech", which you've clarified as really meaning "cant lose job". no shame, just narrowing in.

and you keep saying things to imply my position is in support of woke witch hunts. which isnt the case. you stated what i interpreted as an absolute, i tested it with an extreme example, you responded with a tame example which i wouldnt support because im not a woke person. if you make the argument your rule is absolute it has to be tested with extremes.

so if joe screams the n word in an old black lady's face on the subway and it goes viral is there any circumstance at all in which he can lose his job? if the business is being harassed that's obviously not good, if its being damaged or threatened that's 100% not ok, but what about the employers own freedom of association?

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 11 2026 08:21am

You are right. You are not free from consequences of speech I agree.

But when the rhetoric on the left calls for violence constantly without consequence, that's a problem. Joe Biden stated he wished he could take Trump out back behind the gym and beat him. Constant calls for violence in left wing media spaces. Where are there consequences?

Violence is not a suitable and justified action in response to free speech. Even if you strongly dislike what someone says, you cannot use violence against them. That violence is celebrated by many here and those many lean left.

That's all there is to it.

The left has done an injustice at creating this narrative that people are not allowed to say things we don't agree with and that narrative is be silent or be murdered.

It's disgusting behavior.

You do realise u r feeding the tribalism? The blame game, the hate-spreading accusations that appear to be solely black and white.
In other words, u r part of the problem and not the solution.
Which saddens me.
I was hoping u would have an attempt at healing the divide, not widening it

No limits on free speech is easily defined, I already did it. You can not harm someone physically or financially based on something they said in their personal life. You're free to criticize them, dislike them or even avoid them. You are not free to harm them. It's fairly straightforward.

The only moral "consequences" for speech are social consequences.

But no, as I've said it is none of your employer's business what you say when you are not representing them.

I agree with you that we have to test the theory with extremes, but all extremes not just one. You made Joe a gas station attendant and I made him a fire fighter. My opinion is the same in both cases, yours deviates. This was the purpose of my second example, not to deny that yours is fair and relevant.

This post was edited by Shadowoffury on Jun 11 2026 10:32am

I mean it's not really. I hold both parties accountable when needed, which is why I do not support Trump.

But people like Pyro seem to just think rules for thee and not for me.

Also, Kirk was not a racist, misogynist, etc. Facts =/= racism.

so if you take away the right of an employer to fire someone based on what they said you're basically forcing association on them. they have to work with, see every day, and interact with someone who said something that makes them want to avoid the person. but they can't, because a job is entangled.

tbh given your post it sounds like you'd be fine if Joe was disowned by his own mother who no longer wants to be around him, but his boss has to accept him around him every day because Joe has some right to never be fired for his speech unless its on the job.