Indeed, and it seems some of those lunatics are now being "cancelled", loosing their jobs etc. because conservatives are sending this stuff to employers etc. Love to see it.
Charlie Kirk is dead... A sad day in history
- Thread starter Beau
- Start date
Indeed, and it seems some of those lunatics are now being "cancelled", loosing their jobs etc. because conservatives are sending this stuff to employers etc. Love to see it.
Gary at Paramount Tactical, who was really good re: Butler, has a video on the bulletproof-vest ricochet:
I wouldn't see "at the least". I've seen at least one other leftist account that posted what appeared to be a veiled threat about that day. It could be foreknowledge, an admission, or just a lucky guess.
And it's not just semi-anons on BlueSky and X. They're all out on TikTok and other platforms using their real faces and everything:
The advantage is that they're not afraid of identifying themselves. It's like a self-reporting sex-predator database.
I thought this post by Joe was quite à propos:
Here’s Charlie Kirk just a day before his assassination coming out and directly questioning how truthful the media is about Israel with Ben Shapiro. The most relevant part starts at 10:05:
And apparently the last big event he had was one where he invited Dave Smith to debate some Zionist. Need to look to see if that is online.
And apparently the last big event he had was one where he invited Dave Smith to debate some Zionist. Need to look to see if that is online.
Although, wouldn't it be a good opportunity for the PTB/hyperdimensional STS forces to be behind the algorithm that make the right/left wings be more antagonized?
From Laura's Grok converations.
It would seem to me that Kirk being assassinated at a University while publicly changing his position against Israel sure fits the below discussion as to what will initiate the program change.
(April 2024 - prior to the Trump assassination program change which was aborted due to, "Mass violation of free will")
As much as his assassination might serve as a distraction to Tucker's 9/11 documentary, I think the real story that needed cover is that Israel decided to flatten Gaza City to distract the press from the fact they're starving millions of people to death.
Do you mean it as sarcasm, as in "it's illegal, but everyone does it and gets away with it" kinda thing?
Because I did a quick lookup with Grok, and it would seem it's illegal, but I guess it's gotten so rampant online that authorities are almost powerless to enforce it, or they enforce it only when it suits them, or when you are a targeted individual, then any means are used to get you down:
In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution protects free speech, but this right is not absolute. There are legal limits, both civil and criminal, that address specific types of speech deemed harmful or dangerous. Below is an overview of the key limitations and consequences for speech that crosses legal boundaries, such as hate speech, incitement to violence, and other restricted forms:
1. Constitutional Framework
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." However, the U.S. Supreme Court has established that certain types of speech fall outside this protection due to their potential to cause harm. These exceptions are narrowly defined to balance free expression with public safety and individual rights.
2. Key Exceptions to Free Speech
The following categories of speech are not protected or are subject to legal restrictions, with associated civil or criminal consequences:
a. Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action
- Legal Standard: Speech that incites imminent illegal activity is not protected if it meets the criteria set by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The speech must:
- Intend to incite illegal activity.
- Be likely to produce imminent lawless action.
- Be directed at a specific act of violence or lawbreaking.
- Examples: Calling for a crowd to immediately attack a person or property with clear intent and likelihood of action.
- Consequences:
- Criminal: Can lead to charges such as incitement to riot or incitement to violence, depending on state or federal law. Penalties may include fines or imprisonment (e.g., up to 7 years under federal law for inciting a riot, per 18 U.S.C. § 2101).
- Civil: Potential lawsuits for damages caused by the incited actions.
- Legal Standard: Speech that conveys a serious intent to commit violence against a specific individual or group is not protected (Watts v. United States, 1969; Virginia v. Black, 2003). The threat must be credible and specific, evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person.
- Examples: Threatening to kill someone, bomb a building, or harm a group with clear intent.
- Consequences:
- Criminal: Charges may include making criminal threats (state laws vary) or federal charges like transmitting threats across state lines (18 U.S.C. § 875), with penalties including fines or imprisonment (up to 5 years for some federal threat offenses).
- Civil: Victims may sue for emotional distress or seek restraining orders.
- Legal Standard: Hate speech is generally protected unless it falls into another unprotected category, such as incitement, true threats, or targeted harassment. The U.S. has a high threshold for restricting hate speech compared to other countries (Texas v. Johnson, 1989; Brandenburg v. Ohio). Speech targeting protected groups (e.g., based on race, religion, or sexual orientation) is only actionable if it crosses into one of these exceptions.
- Examples:
- Protected: General expressions of prejudice or offensive opinions, even if highly offensive (e.g., burning a flag or using racial slurs in a non-threatening context).
- Unprotected: Hate speech that constitutes a true threat, incitement, or targeted harassment (e.g., cross-burning with intent to intimidate, as in Virginia v. Black).
- Consequences:
- Criminal: If hate speech involves threats or incitement, it may lead to charges under state or federal hate crime laws (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 249, which addresses hate crimes causing bodily injury, with penalties up to 7 years or life imprisonment if death results).
- Civil: Victims may pursue civil rights lawsuits or claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Some states have specific hate speech-related civil statutes.
- Hate Crime Enhancement: If hate speech accompanies a crime (e.g., assault motivated by bias), federal or state hate crime laws may enhance penalties.
- Legal Standard: False statements that harm someone’s reputation are not protected if they meet the criteria for defamation. Public figures must prove "actual malice" (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964), while private individuals need only show negligence.
- Examples: Spreading false rumors that someone committed a crime, damaging their reputation or livelihood.
- Consequences:
- Civil: Lawsuits for monetary damages, including compensatory and punitive damages.
- Criminal: Rare, but some states have criminal defamation laws with fines or short jail terms.
- Legal Standard: Speech deemed obscene is not protected under the Miller v. California (1973) test, which requires that the material:
- Appeals to prurient interest (as judged by community standards).
- Depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.
- Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
- Examples: Hardcore pornography distributed in a way that violates community standards.
- Consequences:
- Criminal: Charges for distributing or producing obscene material (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1465, with penalties up to 5 years in prison).
- Civil: Seizure of materials or civil fines.
- Legal Standard: Face-to-face insults likely to provoke immediate violence are not protected (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942). This category is narrowly defined and rarely applied.
- Examples: Direct, personal insults in a confrontational setting likely to cause a violent reaction.
- Consequences:
- Criminal: May result in charges like disorderly conduct, with fines or short jail terms.
- Civil: Rarely leads to civil liability unless paired with other harms.
- Legal Standard: Speech that constitutes targeted harassment or stalking, especially if it creates a hostile environment or fear, may be restricted. This often applies in contexts like workplaces, schools, or online (Elonis v. United States, 2015, for online threats).
- Examples: Repeated threatening messages or cyberbullying targeting an individual.
- Consequences:
- Criminal: Charges under state stalking or harassment laws (e.g., California Penal Code § 646.9, with penalties up to 7 years for aggravated stalking).
- Civil: Restraining orders or lawsuits for emotional distress.
- Workplace: Speech creating a hostile work environment (e.g., racial or sexual harassment) may violate federal or state anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act). Consequences include civil lawsuits or workplace discipline.
- Schools: Speech disrupting the learning environment or targeting students (e.g., bullying) may lead to school discipline or civil rights claims (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969; Davis v. Monroe County, 1999).
- Online Speech: Platforms like X may moderate content under their terms of service, even if the speech is legally protected. Cyberstalking or doxxing may lead to criminal charges under federal or state laws (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2261A for cyberstalking, with up to 5 years in prison).
- Federal Laws: Address issues like interstate threats, hate crimes, or incitement (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 241 for conspiracy to violate civil rights, with up to 7 years in prison).
- State Laws: Vary widely but often include statutes on criminal threats, harassment, or disorderly conduct. Penalties depend on the state and severity (e.g., fines, probation, or imprisonment).
- Prosecution: Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so not all harmful speech leads to charges. Prosecutors prioritize cases with clear evidence of intent and harm.
- Civil Remedies: Victims may seek damages or injunctions more readily than criminal prosecution, especially for defamation or harassment.
- Private Consequences: Beyond legal penalties, individuals may face social or professional consequences, such as job loss or public backlash, even for legally protected speech.
- Debates on Hate Speech: There is ongoing debate about whether the U.S. should adopt stricter hate speech laws, as seen in other countries. Posts on X reflect polarized views, with some arguing for broader restrictions and others defending robust free speech protections.
- Online Speech: Recent cases highlight challenges with online platforms, where doxxing, misinformation, or coordinated harassment campaigns test the boundaries of free speech. Courts continue to refine standards for online threats (Counterman v. Colorado, 2023, clarified intent requirements for true threats).
- Hate Crime Legislation: Federal and state laws increasingly focus on bias-motivated crimes, with enhanced penalties when speech accompanies criminal acts.
While the U.S. prioritizes free speech, exceptions like incitement, true threats, and hate crimes carry significant legal consequences, ranging from fines and imprisonment to civil damages. The threshold for restricting speech is high, requiring clear intent or harm, but both criminal and civil laws provide mechanisms to address abuses.
AI is lying to you. Saying a person's name with next would be constitutional free speech and not illegal.
Ruth
The Living Force
Of course, and it also distracts from the real killer/s.
(Probably the FBI in my opinion, or certain members of that organisation, just like the Trump shooting. That lot for domestic terror, and the CIA for International terror, although they'd probably subcontract out).
Found this video from Jeff Ostroff (total time 11.50 min). He's an engineer, so it's from his normal evidence based perspective. I think he comes up with a very reasonable explanation of the shooters ingress and egress from the building he shot from (towards the end of the video @ 9.42 min).
This seems a reasonable explanation of the shooters movements, not the fairytale the FBI is spinning. (A rifle wrapped in a blanket in the woods and the shooter running away through the woods into suburbia?).
Anyway, in my subjective opinion of the FBI briefing given about the shooting, they seem to be smirking or laughing at the average American. Not really upset enough, in my opinion.
It would also make sense to me that there would be a 'team' involved in this particular circumstance. Not a lone gunman. The most obvious question to ask about the 'person of interest' that the FBI is showing pictures off, is... where's the gun?
This is very interesting. On September 9, Amazon published a book called "The Shooting of Charlie Kirk."
X users found the archived link
Definitely strange.
X users found the archived link
Definitely strange.
Grok is not lying. It answered my question concisely regarding what is deemed criminal. For reference, my 1st question was this:
In the US, there is "free speech", but are there laws (civil or criminal) to manage it, because there are limits to what free speech is allowed, such as when there is hate speech, promoting hate and violence, instigating murder, etc. What happens in these instances?
To clarify its first answer (posted previously), I paraphrased it:
Q: When you say "The U.S. has a high threshold for restricting hate speech compared to other countries", you mean they are very lax and it takes a lot before you get arrested?
A: The U.S. has a high threshold for restricting hate speech, meaning it is more permissive and requires a significant level of harm or intent before legal action, like arrest, is taken. Unlike many other countries (e.g., Germany, Canada, or France), where hate speech laws are stricter and can criminalize broader expressions of prejudice or group-based insults, U.S. law protects most hate speech unless it falls into specific exceptions like incitement to imminent violence, true threats, or targeted harassment. For example, offensive or discriminatory statements are often protected under the First Amendment unless they directly intend to provoke illegal activity or cause immediate harm. This makes arrests for hate speech alone rare in the U.S. compared to countries with more restrictive laws.
So, what I get from this is: people can say almost whatever they want online, and there will be no legal consequences. Of course, saying a name + next won't be eligible for legal action.
Ninas
Jedi
It seems some guys who knew each other and were in some kind of Trans-Band are persons of interest to the FBI, so much so that they're offering $100,000 reward for any substantial leads.
Omar is a person of interest because he stated that something was going to happen to Charlie a day before the assassination.
Omar is a person of interest because he stated that something was going to happen to Charlie a day before the assassination.
Trending content
-
Thread 'Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?'
- wanderingthomas
Replies: 30K -
-
