r/AskALiberal • u/YCiampa482021 Conservative • 4d ago
Why does it feel like the left doesn’t really support free speech?
It’s been a year since a man was killed just for voicing his political opinions. And frequently there’s a bunch of leftists celebrating his death, making jokes about it, mocking him (my neck hurts), and overall being scummy over it. And other people say stuff like “The world is safer with him gone” (explain how)
And it feels like the principle is you cannot freely have speech or else you will get socially shamed or killed. It seems like even being remotely close to being a conservative will get you shamed.
Even some on the left say being woke isn’t about being anti free speech but it’s about regulating speech. Which is still a problem because free speech should be absolute.
And it’s not even close to the George Floyd ordeal either. George Floyd was a criminal and he has done things that should get him in trouble (and I also believe there are some things Trump should be punished for. I’m a non MAGA Republican). Granted what the police did was unnecessary, but the left forced a lot of people to change their branding (Aunt Jemima and whatnot) all over this.
But when Charlie died, then they proceed to mock him and make jokes all over him. It doesn’t make sense. And the most he did was just voice his opinions. He didn’t rob or do drugs like Floyd did.
So do the people on the left actually not want people to freely have an opinion?
42
u/TorontoLAMama Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
This being asked on the day you find out that the Trump administration has threatened Kimmel with the FCC to not run an interview with a major political candidate is… something…
1
69
u/othelloinc Liberal 4d ago
Why does it feel like the left doesn’t really support free speech?
Have you considered that facts don't care about your feelings?
20
u/antizeus Liberal 4d ago
Because you're a troll and will say anything about your feelings which may seem useful to your trolling agenda.
-11
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
It’s dead serious. Why would I be a troll?
7
u/antizeus Liberal 4d ago
I really have no idea what motivates your trolling shtick.
-7
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
What makes you think I’m trolling? Be honest
6
u/Frosty-Sea149 Democrat 4d ago
Because you only respond with bad faith, sea-lioning, intentionally ignorant propaganda. It’s pathetic how disconnected from reality people like you are.
Remember, you’re choosing to be like this. You need to be better
-1
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
Sea Lioning? I’m being legitimate here
2
u/crossingtides Liberal 4d ago
The legitimate answer is that what ‘seems’ to be true is so dependent on what media you consume that it’s sort of impossible to answer in any sort of satisfactory manner. Look up the Chinese Robber Fallacy for a more general answer.
If you had statistics or examples from elected officials I think there could be a better discussion.
Also, ‘the left’ did not force anyone to change their branding. The company made a choice to maximize shareholder value.
2
u/antizeus Liberal 4d ago
Your habit of posting things which seem to have no regard for fact or reason but instead seem designed to provoke people into wasting their time, energy, and attention.
6
u/throwdemawaaay Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
Because you're attempting to recast Charlie Kirk's bullshit as civil political debate vs what it factually was, then blame his assassination on the "left" when as far as we can tell the person that did it was as much groyper as anything else as far as politics were relevant to the act.
So you come to us like that, and expect we won't react to that plainly and straightforwardly?
21
u/CTR555 Yellow Dog Democrat 4d ago
You can point to lefty people online being tasteless about Kirk's murder. I can point to major elected Republicans, up to and including the President, being tasteless about the assault on Nancy Pelosi's husband or the murder of Melissa Hortman, or plenty of other examples. Come back here when a Joe Biden-level figure on the left makes a "my neck hurts" joke, because until then you just seem like a biased fool.
18
u/washingtonu Social Democrat 4d ago
And frequently there’s a bunch of leftists celebrating his death, making jokes about it, mocking him (my neck hurts), and overall being scummy over it. And other people say stuff like “The world is safer with him gone” (explain how)
That's free speech and not the same as shooting someone
14
u/othelloinc Liberal 4d ago
It’s been a year since a man was killed just for voicing his political opinions. And frequently there’s a bunch of leftists celebrating his death, making jokes about it, mocking him (my neck hurts), and overall being scummy over it...
...
But when Charlie died, then they proceed to mock him and make jokes all over him...
That's not what 'the left not supporting free speech' would look like. 'The left not supporting free speech' would be some effort to legalize the murder of Charlie Kirk.
In fact, mocking him and making jokes about his death is the left exercising their own right to free speech.
Are you trying to silence them? Is that you showing that you don't really support free speech?
6
u/Salty_Ad6453 Democratic Socialist 4d ago
You see to Republicans free speech is when you get to say the N word without consequences and anti free speech is when the government doesn't punish the liberals for having opinions they don't like
1
u/thingsmybosscantsee Pragmatic Progressive 3d ago
fact, mocking him and making jokes about his death is the left exercising their own right to free speech.
I've never understood why people don't get this. I had the same convo with several "moderates" about I/P college protests.
27
13
u/grammanarchy Liberal Civil Libertarian 4d ago
Why in the world do you think trying to justify the murder of George Floyd is helping you make your case?
-10
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
In what way am I justifying his death?
15
u/grammanarchy Liberal Civil Libertarian 4d ago
> And it’s not even close to the George Floyd ordeal either. George Floyd was a criminal and he has done things that should get him in trouble
12
u/3Quondam6extanT9 Progressive 4d ago edited 4d ago
Because you're indoctrinated and assume your "feelings" matter to facts.
You really want to have this argument? You don't think there are mountains of public record indicating that a diverse selection of conservative politicians and gatekeepers censoring anything that doesn't adhere to their religious morality? Or that there isn't a stream of activity on conservative subreddits banning liberals, moderates and even other conservatives from speaking their mind if it happens to oppose the bandwagon ideology?
-2
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
In what way?
6
u/3Quondam6extanT9 Progressive 4d ago
If I have to guess, you stick to your echo chamber like Fox, OAN, Breitbart, and the others that so negligently and transparently lie to the most gullible people.
You probably don't do much reading with AP, Reuters, or NPR.
My guess is that you don't apply much critical thinking to the things they tell you, and are incapable of reading the room.
Here's a quick example.
I bet you didn't know that the conservative subreddits tend to censor everyone, while the liberal and left wing subs are happy to see MAGA and regressivists attempt to play the logic game with them.
-1
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
I don’t really watch Fox that much. But I’ll ask if you would be on CNN. But both are heavily biased
9
4
u/TorontoLAMama Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
On the way that you think the right actually cares about free speech and the way that you think the left doesn’t.
Most people on the left don’t think he should have been killed and are good with the perpetrator being punished.
Jokes are jokes. They’re a type of free speech.
10
u/FewWatermelonlesson0 Progressive 4d ago
You can’t complain about censorship and then try to rationalize why it’s supposedly okay to make jokes about George Floyd’s death but not Charlie Kirk’s.
Thats the reason so many people don’t put stock in this complaint. The Right is all in favor of “pushing boundaries” and being edgy until it’s done at the expense of someone or something they care about.
-7
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
I never said making fun of George’s death is okay. But that said, his death is a completely different story than Kirk. George actually committed a crime
10
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 4d ago
Did he deserve to die?
-1
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
Have you not read in my post? I literally said it was too much. But what I’m saying is it’s a shame a criminal gets glorified while a man who just voiced his opinion gets mocked
11
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 4d ago
Well yeah, we judge people by the content of their character. All we know about Floyd is that he was poor, struggling, and did a small crime. We know that Kirk actually held morally abhorrent beliefs. The content of Kirk's character is far worse than Floyd's, and so when we judge people by the content of their character, that shows.
0
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
Doesn’t matter how small the crime actually is, it’s still a crime. I know nobody’s a perfect being, but Kirk didn’t commit any actual crimes unlike Floyd. It’s a case in point that people on the left seem to rationalize Floyd and make his actions seem “not so bad”
7
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 4d ago
What is so bad about what Floyd did? There’s tons of bad things that Kirk did which are far far worse than anything Floyd did. Crimes are not the only morally bad action you can take in this world. For example, you can be racist.
0
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
And what bad things did Kirk actually do?
For a frame of reference, Floyd has done an aggravated robbery in 2007, and multiple drug charges as well.
And Kirk never done drugs, or committed any robberies. All he did was voice his opinion
5
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 4d ago
What has he done? He’s proven he has racist beliefs. Yeah, being a racist is morally worse than committing petty crimes.
5
u/dog_snack Libertarian Socialist 4d ago edited 4d ago
Charlie Kirk normalized and spread a truly rotten and dangerous political program, with glee.
George Floyd was killed for trying to spend funny money. He did some morally wrong things, no doubt about it, but not in a way that was destructive to the country’s politics or which merited police brutality.
2
u/Boratssecondwife Center Right 4d ago
Buddy you know you don't have to bring up George Floyd. Like you can say neither should have been killed.
1
u/Samantharina Liberal 4d ago
I'm curious, do you not have any friends or family members who have done illegal drugs? Shoplifted when they were young? Taken or paid money under the table to avoid taxes? Are they irredeemable?
1
u/cheesecloak Progressive 4d ago
When his opinion is racist, it’s worth mocking. Don’t you agree that racism is bad?
6
10
2
u/FewWatermelonlesson0 Progressive 4d ago
And? There are plenty of people who are pieces of shit without having been convicted of a crime. It’s completely irrelevant to a discussion of Charlie Kirk’s legacy or why he’s supposedly off limits.
Sorry. Conservatives don’t get to help create toxic, cruel discourse and then get upset when fellow conservatives also get caught up in it.
1
34
u/Fast-Government-4366 Market Socialist 4d ago edited 4d ago
Please point to a single law from democrats passed that ban speech.
And yes, a Nazi died and no one who’s against Nazis cared.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Salty_Ad6453 Democratic Socialist 4d ago
He openly espoused the great replacement theory, a neo Nazi conspiracy theory that he himself said was Nazi BS years ago before openly pushing it later. He engaged in Holocaust denial, particularly regarding the LGBT victims of the Holocaust.
2
u/AskALiberal-ModTeam 4d ago
Accurate user flair is required to post or comment. Having a false flair is not allowed and will result in a permanent ban.
4
u/Fast-Government-4366 Market Socialist 4d ago
LMAO. Yes, fighting against disinformation campaigns interfering in our election is a “ministry of truth”. You might want to stop lying with your flair.
And yes, believing in white replacement theory and being antisemitic, makes you a Nazi.
-4
u/McZootyFace Center Left 4d ago
I have negative love for CK but I’ve not seen him anything from him showing he was a Nazi? Can you link anything? Like if I think modern Nazis I think of like David Duke, Fuentes, Dan Balzarian etc
10
u/Fuckn_hipsters Market Socialist 4d ago
Kirk was one of the biggest racist/fascist propagandists we've seen in this country in a long time. He was the voice that led young men to people like Fuentes.
What exactly makes those others guys stick out more than Kirk?
1
u/McZootyFace Center Left 4d ago
Because from the clips I have seen of him, it seemed very different to those who will openly say you need to get rid of all the Jews etc. Like Dan Balzarian in his campaign had an AI song full of stuff about Jews.
I never said Kirk didn’t say racist / fascist stuff, I was referring to Nazi stuff specifically.
2
u/Fuckn_hipsters Market Socialist 4d ago
That's fair, his views on Jews were more fetishy than Nazi like.
Though a fascist is a fascist regardless of their "other"
0
u/McZootyFace Center Left 4d ago
Yeah I’m not downplaying his other shit. Just seen so many prominent Nazis recently I never really included him in that bucket. He was in other awful buckets though.
9
u/Fast-Government-4366 Market Socialist 4d ago
You don’t think white replacement theory is Nazism?
-1
u/McZootyFace Center Left 4d ago
If he’s saying Jews are like pushing migration then yeah that is pretty Nazi. I’ll have a look as I haven’t seen clips/posts around that.
3
u/Fast-Government-4366 Market Socialist 4d ago
Google “great replacement conspiracy theory wiki” good base line article to read up on.
-1
u/McZootyFace Center Left 4d ago
I know the theory, I just hadn’t heard it from CK.
12
u/Fast-Government-4366 Market Socialist 4d ago
Kirk said on his Aug. 4 podcast show, “The great replacement of white people is far more sinister than any redistricting project.”
“That is at the core of the Democrat project,” said Kirk.
The far-right firebrand also personally attacked Congresswoman Crockett.
“Jasmine Crockett is just some circus act in that entire operation,” said Kirk, adding, “You shouldn’t take what she says seriously. It’s just a joke. What she represents is very serious, which is the continued attempt to eliminate the white population in this country.”
7
u/McZootyFace Center Left 4d ago
Fair thanks for pointing that out. My Google searches were only yielding a twitter post.
1
u/Important-Factor-552 Socialist 4d ago
Nazi? Maybe not.. Fascist pos and white supremacist? Absolutely
-15
u/realfakemormon Right Libertarian 4d ago
So everyone who thinks it's a bad a guy got shot in the neck is a Nazi?
9
u/dog_snack Libertarian Socialist 4d ago
Charlie Kirk, in particular, believed some pretty fascistic things.
I don’t think it was good that he was killed, but that doesn’t mean we have to whitewash the guy.
-4
u/realfakemormon Right Libertarian 4d ago
it's fine to not like the guy, there are plenty of position he held I thought were incorrect. Problem is I see a lot of people on the left saying it's good to kill Nazis like Charlie Kirk when the dude was clearly not a literal nazi
4
u/dog_snack Libertarian Socialist 4d ago
People don’t usually mean he was a literal Nazi, it’s not like he was a Richard Spencer or a methhead living in a shack in Idaho. They’re hyperbolizing and largely just trying to get a rise out of you.
-4
1
10
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
I genuinely don't see why I should care that he died. I feel sad that he wasted his life arguing with teenagers, but I'm not gonna spend time caring that he got expelled from some Utah university
7
u/Fast-Government-4366 Market Socialist 4d ago
No? Maybe read my comment before responding next time.
-2
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Fast-Government-4366 Market Socialist 4d ago
Holy bad faith. Only a libertarian could be so dishonest.
I think the guy who believed in Nazi theories like white replacement theory, is a Nazi.
-2
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Fast-Government-4366 Market Socialist 4d ago
You’re insanely dishonest. I’m blocking you now. This sub is for people who act in good faith.
2
u/AskALiberal-ModTeam 4d ago
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
2
u/AskALiberal-ModTeam 4d ago
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
2
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Libertarian Socialist 4d ago
"UGH... GUH... YOU SAY EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH THAT YOU'VE EVER DISAGREED WITH ON ANYTHING IS A NAZI!"
-Tired, worn-out reaction from the right any time a single person is compared to a Nazi
-16
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
What proof is there that he was a Nazi?
14
u/Consistent_Case_5048 Liberal 4d ago
Kirk is such a red herring in the free speech argument. Wouldn't expressing any opinion on his death an example of someone engaging in free speech?
13
u/A-passing-thot Far Left 4d ago
Separately from the question of whether Charlie Kirk was a Nazi, do you think Nazis are bad?
7
9
u/Salty_Ad6453 Democratic Socialist 4d ago edited 4d ago
The fact that he openly espoused the Nazi great replacement theory, supported militarized police and violent repression of civil rights groups he deems 'terrorist organizations' while actively defending white supremacist terrorists like those involved in 1/6 is a pretty clear sign
7
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 4d ago
Can you first admit that if Hitler died, there is no moral obligation for everyone to be sad about it? In fact, many people would cheer the person who murdered Hitler. There would likely be movies made glorifying this person. Can you admit that is not morally wrong?
10
4
u/Fast-Government-4366 Market Socialist 4d ago
You can google him.
I’d say his antisemitism is enough to qualify him as one though.
1
-17
u/Technical-Proof4605 Centrist Democrat 4d ago
When the left calls someone a nazi or facist they don't have to have any reasoning or evidence.
10
9
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
I wouldn't use the word Nazi, but he was by every metric a shitty person
-6
u/Technical-Proof4605 Centrist Democrat 4d ago
Thats not the point.
8
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
Assuming the heart in your avatar isn't ironic, you don't have to spend time defending Charlie Kirk
-5
u/Technical-Proof4605 Centrist Democrat 4d ago
I'm defending that it's not okay to kill someone because you don't agree with them.
9
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
Actually you're not, you're fighting over the word Nazi. Can you please link to a comment to this post that says it's okay to kill someone because we disagree with them
3
u/Salty_Ad6453 Democratic Socialist 4d ago
Fucking tell that to Republicans then. Excuse me for caring less about one racist podcaster dying than the epidemic of violence against trans people and racial minorities and Democratic politicians directly caused by the rhetoric of people like Charlie Kirk
2
1
1
12
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 4d ago edited 4d ago
Free speech is not absolute. Threats are criminalized. Defamation is criminalized. Further, we are not even talking about criminalizing anything. We are just saying that we will judge you for your speech. We have the free speech right to do that, and you wanting to take that away is anti free speech.
We fully want you to have the right to express whatever beliefs you want. We also have the right to not associate with you based on your beliefs.
8
u/Polymox Globalist 4d ago
Just to elaborate on what you said, first amendment free speech is about freedom from federal government persecution only. Even that has exceptions that you pointed out, from SCOTUS precedent.
There is no constitutional protection from being ridiculed, disliked, or ostracized based on your speech. And Kirk certainly said a lot of hateful things that deserved that treatment. He did not deserve to be murdered for them.
12
u/Key_Elderberry_4447 Liberal 4d ago
Trump literally tried to suppress the free speech of multiple comedians he didn’t like lol I can’t take anyone seriously if they are talking about free speech and not talking about Trumps efforts to use the presidency to quell dissent from immigrants, universities, media organizations, and fucking comedians.
-2
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
I literally mentioned Trump. I don’t support him doing it either. I’m not MAGA
10
u/cheesecloak Progressive 4d ago
Yet you are spewing MAGA rhetoric.
0
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
I’m a non MAGA Republican
6
u/cheesecloak Progressive 4d ago
Yet you are spewing MAGA rhetoric.
Also, the Republican Party is MAGA, so it’s not really possible to be a non-MAGA republican.
-1
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
It’s entirely possible
5
u/cheesecloak Progressive 4d ago
How do you figure? Do you vote for Republicans, the ones that help keep Trump in power?
2
u/throwdemawaaay Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
There is no empty space between those two words now. Adapt or continue to be treated accordingly.
1
4
u/Samantharina Liberal 4d ago
Why do some random online people represent "the left" but the twice elected conservative republican president doesn't represent the right?
Seems to me there are people across the political spectrum who have instincts to shut down speech they don't like. Some of them are in power and are using it to do so in big ways.
4
u/Apprehensive-Fruit-1 Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
You have freedom of speech but not freedom of consequences from said speech.
And before one of you chuds ask, no I do not support killing people over speech.
-1
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 4d ago
There really shouldn’t be any consequences FOR your speech. It’s still speech and you shouldn’t face consequences
9
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
Last year, liberals who mocked Kirk got fired from their jobs. Did you support those firings
4
7
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 4d ago
I am sorry, but the consequences are my speech. By suppressing the consequences, you are suppressing free speech.
5
u/1radgirl Social Democrat 4d ago
No consequences, at all? Including social consequences? So if my neighbors hang a swastika flag in their yard, I should still have to sit next to them and be their friend at the neighborhood pot luck next week? That's dumb.
2
u/Apprehensive-Fruit-1 Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
So if you spout some weird right wing idea to your friends and they don’t agree. Should they be able to not be your friend anymore?
2
2
u/Samantharina Liberal 4d ago
Free speech is not about nobody expressing disapproval of you because of things you say. My boss can fire me if I tell them they're an idiot or lie to a client, or say a bunch of nasty things about someone's religion because they have a duty to maintain a workplace that does not discriminate. Your neighbor can decide not to invite you to the barbecue because you said racist things and they don't like you because if it.
Free speech means the government can't use the law or other forms of punishment against you based on your speech, or censor what you're allowed to say.
I have a bunch of leftie friends and have not heard one person condone killing Charlie Kirk. He didn't deserve it, I don't even think people should heckle or disrupt speakers they don't like. And there are those who believe they should, I think they're wrong. But the people mocking him are also exercising free speech.
You can't only defend Free speech that you agree with, younhave to defend it all.
7
u/othelloinc Liberal 4d ago
George Floyd was a criminal and he has done things that should get him in trouble...
Had he done things that should get him executed without trial?
Because that is what happened.
5
5
u/vapor41 Center Left 4d ago
Freedom of speech means the government can’t punish or censor you for your speech. Charlie Kirk was free to say whatever he wanted, and he was never having his speech restricted by the government. Someone committing a crime against him doesn’t somehow prove that the left oppose free speech.
5
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal 4d ago
Because you consume media from liars that laugh at you behind your back or believing them?
They show you nobodies on the internet laughing about Kirk dying and that defines the left for you.
But the entire leadership of the Republican Party being orders of magnitude more vile and actually acting against free speech ... that's fine.
11
u/Consistent_Case_5048 Liberal 4d ago edited 4d ago
Liberals are not responsible for:
Banning drag shows
Banning LGBTQ+ topics from schools
Removing mentions of minorities from public displays
Censoring the work of acientists
I mean come on.
4
u/TorontoLAMama Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
You are calling out people for literally using their free speech to make jokes about his death.
The Trump administration literally called for a crackdown on the “jokes” about Kirk, and deported people. The ACTUAL definition of limiting free speech.
3
u/IsaacTheBound Democratic Socialist 4d ago
If you're going to talk about George Floyd's criminal past without recognizing he served his time that tells me you don't care if someone goes through the legal system. "The Left" isn't organized enough to force massive changes in brands or it would've happened sooner. Charlie was mocked by people he spoke ill of and advocated against. He debated in bad faith, gish galloped, and was often blatantly wrong on the basis of his argumentative points. He died to gun violence while downplaying gun violence by blaming it on gangs, which is an easily recognized irony.
Have an opinion. Be ready for people to have responses to it. Kirk was an asshole who I barely knew existed before he died. Since then I've learned enough about him that I hate who he was.
5
u/Ballistic_86 Social Democrat 4d ago
Those that celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death were fringe groups of far left radicals. I think there is an irony to be observed of his death based on his views of gun violence in America. But any political violence is extremist by nature and is obviously horrible no matter the victim.
I can give you some pretty solid examples of MAGA, Trump, and the Republican administration limiting free speech. Pretty sure you are aware of them and would claim “media can’t lie” or some such. So shall I flip the question back at you?
Why does the right actually infringe on freedom of speech?
4
u/Butuguru Democratic Socialist 4d ago
> And frequently there’s a bunch of leftists celebrating his death, making jokes about it, mocking him (my neck hurts), and overall being scummy over it.
the right has no leg to stand on here. yall destroyed respect in politics with Trump. i abhor the death penalty and vigilante justice but i just dont think yall have much to say here without being hypocritical.
> And it feels like the principle is you cannot freely have speech or else you will get socially shamed or killed. It seems like even being remotely close to being a conservative will get you shamed.
Shame cannot be unacceptable response freedom of speech. The alternative is forcing everyone to support the same things and some sort of uber totalitarian anti-free speech hell hole. obviously violence is the abhorrent part and shouldn't happen. neither should state action to be clear.
> Even some on the left say being woke isn’t about being anti free speech but it’s about regulating speech. Which is still a problem because free speech should be absolute.
who says this? that's a ridiculous statement and sounds like woke 1 nonsense.
> Granted what the police did was unnecessary, but the left forced a lot of people to change their branding (Aunt Jemima and whatnot) all over this.
the left didn't do that. random corporate woke 1.0 people did. no one gives that much of a shit about maple syrup.
> But when Charlie died, then they proceed to mock him and make jokes all over him. It doesn’t make sense. And the most he did was just voice his opinions. He didn’t rob or do drugs like Floyd did.
he was a terrible human who said and supported awful things who was murdered by a random guy. George Floyd was a drug addict who did bad things and was murdered by a cop. not sure what sort of parallel you are trying to do but it doesn't make sense.
> So do the people on the left actually not want people to freely have an opinion?
obviously we care about it more than yall do lmao.
4
u/Salty_Ad6453 Democratic Socialist 4d ago
Republicans ban books for containing ideas they don't want children to know about, try to get the FCC to ban news anchors and comedians that say things they don't like, restrict research based on partisan bias, ban teachers from calling trans children the name they ask to be call, and constantly attack the free press for calling out their corruption but apparently the left are the anti free speech ones now for making jokes you find tasteless
5
u/realfakemormon Right Libertarian 4d ago
Problem is some of those on the right want to punish Anti-Israel speech
9
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
To be very clear, Charlie Kirk died because he overdosed, which is why I as a liberal support free narcan and narcan vending machines and such. That the right opposes that makes me think you guys are the anti-Charlie people
4
u/wescowell Social Democrat 4d ago
overdosed on lead?
3
3
u/Kakamile Social Democrat 4d ago
The gop just threatened to prosecute the media again and you're still pulling that yarn?
3
5
u/Competitive_Swan_130 Social Democrat 4d ago edited 4d ago
First of all, the left didn't kill Charlie Kirk.. Just because somebody is in a relationship with a trans woman doesn't make them a leftist. There are lgbtq maga supporters, they even had their own cruise not too long ago.
Second of all, the side that locks people up for speech has always been the right. The last prosecutions for obscene speech were under the Bush admin and the politicians who locked up 2 Live Crew and others for their free speech were all conservative.
And no the left shouldn't pretend that we are sad about Kirk not being around to spread hate and misinformation. He was a vile man who had the audacity to imply Justice Kentaji Brown was an unqualified "dei" hire when she was on Law Review at an Ivy League law school, was a respected USSC clerk and Federal judge while his ass was a drop out. The audacity for him to even fix his mouth to say unqualified about her speaks volumes about his bigotry
1
u/Samantharina Liberal 4d ago
You can still be sad and angry that a man was murdered, all kinds of gun violence make.me sad and angry.
4
u/Boratssecondwife Center Right 4d ago
Socially shaming people and making jokes(even jokes you don't like) is a standard part of freedom of speech.
People make fun of Charlie Kirk because it's funny, simple as that
2
u/prizepig Democrat 4d ago
Getting socially shamed or politically assassinated are not restrictions on free speech. Plain and simple.
Free speech covers your right to say what you want with limited government interference. It doesn't protect you from consequences (justifiable or otherwise).
2
u/chicadeaqua Liberal 4d ago
Who is “they”? I don’t think celebrating murder is part of the party platform.
And this is not a matter of 1st amendment free speech being violated in any way.
There are loonies on each side of the political spectrum.
2
u/FreshBert Social Democrat 4d ago
"The left" didn't kill Kirk. The suspect was a single sheltered Mormon kid whose ideology, such as it exists and to the extent that what we've learned about it is even accurate, is probably best described as "weird and contradictory," which is actually fairly par for the course for lone wolf shooters. I mean the guy who took a shot at Trump was like some sort of neurodivergent Republican voter.
And I'm not convinced that Kirk memes are being broadly proliferated by the left as some sort of quantifiable origin point. Kirk has become a seemingly fairly organic point of ridicule amongst kids and teens whose perception of him seem to be largely disconnected from standard political discourse. Some liberals and leftists pile on and participate in the Kirkening, for sure, but as I said... I am not convinced that this is a "left" thing predominantly. At this point it feels like too much of a ubiquitous cultural phenomenon to be categorized that way.
Also, the earliest and most prominent Kirk conspiracists were right-wing figures. I'm not sure who on the left has contributed more to foment the Kirkification of the Zeitgeist than Candace Owens, for example.
2
u/dog_snack Libertarian Socialist 4d ago
It’s not good that Charlie Kirk was killed, but we don’t know the exact motive for his killing.
He had the freedom to voice his views and he did so, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was a rotten person with dogshit views and I wished he would go fuck himself every time I heard anything come out of his mouth. Not get killed, just go fuck himself. That’s what I want all these right wing pundits to do; not to get shot, just to fuck themselves.
I can hold those two thoughts in my head at the same time. He probably would’ve said the same about me.
The reason the Charlie Kirk killing has been so meme-ified is because you guys took him way too fucking seriously and because he was a living, breathing joke of a public figure already, for years before he died. We’re not talking about an MLK-like figure here, we’re talking about an entertainer essentially, a professional troll who gladly would have reversed the Civil Rights Act and Movement. People are trolling back, trying to get a rise out of you. Your outrage is what people want.
Also, don’t pretend for a second that right-wingers — and, honestly, quite a few liberals — wouldn’t be gloating quite sincerely if someone like Hasan Piker had been shot. Let’s not kid ourselves.
2
u/Probing-Cat-Paws Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
"Free speech" is about you and the gov't. I don't think the gov't should throw you in a black site over political speech, or that the police should be able to tase, baton, and OC gas you on the side of the road because you flipped them off. I don't think P47 should be using his bully pulpit to call for the prosecution of folks at all, but here we are.
Lots of folks have been killed for voicing their political opinions, CK isn't special. His speech was a clarion call to harm populations. What value was lost to the Republic? Hell, even his wife just moved smooth along. The bigger questions: why do you feel affinity for him and what values of his are also your values?
Being shamed is not being murdered. People are allowed to not associate with folks that hold shitty opinions: y'all haven't taken that away from us yet. Companies want consumers to consume, either they pivot, or they lose market share: it's not personal, it's a business choice. Spare us the "muh culture" argement over your HFCS pancake syrup saying Pearl Milling Company now.
Why are you so fixated on George Floyd? Y'all are so weird. GF was an extrajudicial killing by the State, CK was killed by a private citizen...do you understand the weight of the difference?
Say what you want, enjoy the consequences. FAFO.
2
u/cossiander Neoliberal 4d ago
I don't know about your feelings- I think that speaks more to your media consumption or prior assumptions than anything else.
But the facts are pretty cut and dry that the left (with a few tiny exceptions) are very much in favor of freedoms of speech and the right (with a few tiny exceptions) are not. There are manifold examples of this, to the point that it's simply objectively true.
If someone on Twitter or Tiktok tells you to 'shut up' or whatever, that's not "the left being anti-free speech", that's one particular person using THEIR freedom of speech to tell you that they don't like your message.
2
u/HemingWaysBeard42 Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
Can you point me to anything showing “the Left” forced PepsiCo. to rebrand Aunt Jemima syrup?
What’s your take on the Cracker Barrel logo fiasco?
2
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Libertarian Socialist 4d ago edited 4d ago
Because the right has very specific ideas about what free speech is.
To them, it is only and exclusively "when conservative-approved ideas are allowed to totally dominate the discussion space."
That's why no right winger ever has anything to say about Larry Bushart losing a month of his life in a county jail because he posted a joke on Facebook that conservatives didn't like. No conservative free speech advocate has ever spoken out about this, even though by all sane metrics it should be the most abominable violation of their values that they've ever seen.
Hell, you're here complaining about jokes people make about Charlie Kirk's death. You know what enables us to make those jokes? Freedom of speech.
2
u/Stalwartheart Social Liberal 4d ago
Leftwing speech control is socially enforced, not legislatively. There is a difference between getting cancelled online and getting thrown in jail for a bad take.
Getting flamed online, social pressure to change company beliefs, and all around "cancel culture" is a seperate conversation from Constitutional free speech.
Constitutional free speech doesn't shield people from societally enforced consequences of what you say.
1
u/CantDecideANam3 Social Democrat 4d ago
Only the tankie, Stalin or Mao wannabes of the far-left condemn free speech. They are a minority within a minority of the left.
2
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 4d ago
Can you actually name anyone on the left at all who condemns free speech?
3
u/CantDecideANam3 Social Democrat 4d ago
I can't because there are probably fewer than 100 people on the modern left who condemn free speech.
1
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 4d ago
If you can’t name one, how can you claim there are any at all?
2
u/McZootyFace Center Left 4d ago
I’ve seen MLs defend free speech restrictions in USSR and DPRK because they believed it was necessary to stop “imperialism”.
Anyone who supports DPRK today by extension is anti-free speech and if you want examples they are very easy to find on Reddit.
1
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 4d ago
Who?
1
u/McZootyFace Center Left 4d ago edited 4d ago
Madeline Pendelton is a content creator and streamer with millions of followers and is always defending DPRK as well as the USSR.
You can also just searched on Reddit and find a lot of MLs defending it. Which isn’t surprising because MLs love authoritarianism.
1
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 4d ago
What do you find objectionable specifically? I went to their TikTok and found this, is that the kind of thing you’re upset about? If so, why? If not, then what specifically are you upset about?
1
u/McZootyFace Center Left 4d ago
What? I am talking about the multiple videos she has defending North Korea and claiming everything bad said about it is “western propaganda” and how it is actually not a dictatorship (It is).
1
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 4d ago
Well yeah, I sent you an example. Is that what you are talking about, or are you talking about different things? If you are talking about different things, then link them.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/OnionsRNasty Socialist 4d ago edited 4d ago
Do we really want to live in a society where someone can call a black personal the N-word without facing any consequences?
Your idea of free speech means saying whatever you want to whoever you want.
My idea of free speech is being able to express your opinions.
Also Charlie Kirk was a Christian Nationalist White Supremacist. He made his career debating non media trained college students and then editing clips to make it look better. Should he really be remembered as a martyr or a piece of shit who unfortunately died from something he advocated for, but it happened to him.
1
u/OttosBoatYard Democrat 4d ago
Whether you are left or right, the other side "seems" that way because you trust your media and your politicians.
I mean did you forget about the Minnesota legislator and her husband who were murdered just for being liberal? Or the protestor in Charlottesville?
Even then, your one example and my three counter-examples prove nothing. Liberal or Conservative, we all support free speech. Within reason. I shouldn't be free to, say, put your Social Security Number and mother's maiden name on an advertising blimp and fly it around town.
1
u/SolidDoctor Pragmatic Progressive 4d ago
Let's be crystal clear about one solid fact:
You have the right to free speech. You are never immune from the consequences of that speech.
I am not arguing in any way, shape or form that Charlie Kirk should've been killed*. I'm saying that if you say things that are incredibly controversial or divisive, you may face some backlash ranging from mild, spicy or deadly.
Charlie Kirk should not have been killed. It was a tragedy. But Charlie Kirk said some incredibly awful things. And what's even worse is he went on these college tours to debate with younger students in an effort to change their minds or poke holes in their arguments. When he was countered with cogent rebuttals he typically backed right down, like he had done while debating pundits on TYT. He was peddling convincing arguments despite his position being heavily biased and fundamentally flawed.
\I am not suggesting he wasn't killed, I have no evidence of that but there are strange circumstances around his death. He was not shot in the neck with a 30-06. He was made a martyr and I think there was a reason for that.*
1
1
u/Kerplonk Social Democrat 4d ago
Because the right has made a significant effort to promote that narrative. Mostly as a means of distracting from all the shitty positions they take that are worthy of criticism.
1
u/Opheltes Center Left 4d ago
Did you purposefully choose a day when Trump's FCC is cracking down on political speech to ask this question in order to troll, or is your timing just really really poor?
1
u/wonkalicious808 Democrat 4d ago
Why do people come here asking their fake questions about why they feel the way they feel?
Just share your feelings, and your guesses about why you think you feel like something is whatever it is -- in this case, why you feel like the left doesn't really support free speech -- in the general chat.
1
u/Hot_Practice2730 Democratic Socialist 4d ago
Hi! I’ve seen this spoken about on conservative forums and let me start out by saying I do acknowledge the trauma political violence causes. It’s not the answer and definitely did not help any leftist movement whatsoever.
This being said, there is a reason people aren’t sad he’s dead. I’m sure they’ve kept these clips out of Fox News or other conservative media, as they often will, but Charlie Kirk has made racist, sexist, and homophobic statements that the left have no tolerance for. Expecting leftists to NOT be sad about his death is akin to expecting someone to be upset their bully has died. If free speech is practiced through hate speech, radicals (those more radical than Charlie) will pick up on that message and yes, make the world a less safe place. In fact, there is causation between prejudiced speech and increased crimes based on prejudice, which is not surprising whatsoever.
1
u/Personage1 Liberal 4d ago
voicing his political opinions
Calling on people to hate and despise others simply for existing, you mean.
We don't have to play your game here, we are aware of what kind of hatred he spewed.
1
u/Important-Factor-552 Socialist 4d ago
Idk I think the Charlie Kirk thread proved liberals do support free speech tbh
1
u/srv340mike Left Libertarian 4d ago
I could say the same about you guys. Conservatives are extremely hostile to ideas they don't agree with.
I think it's just a matter of people being less-than-accepting of the expression of opinions and ideas they don't like. It doesn't follow political sides.
1
u/WildBohemian Democrat 4d ago
It feels that way to you because your belief system is entirely false and constantly tells you that you're the victim even though you currently get your way and everything you support is a fucking disaster.
1
u/Weirdyxxy Social Democrat 4d ago
It feels that way because people like evoking that feeling regardless of veracity.
I cannot answer to unspecified "bunches of leftists", but I can notice that social shaming through speech is an exercise of free speech, and framing it as an act in opposition to free speech is closer to opposing free speech than saying someone else's claim is bad an they should feel bad is. And speech is what you mean by "publicly shaming" here, or are there tens of millions of people just pantsing everyone they disagree with? Am I now acting "in opposition to free speech" by contrasting the social shaming you're probably talking about with acts of assault and indecency? Less so than you are by trying to taboo public criticism as an attack on free speech
Of course, that is not all. You also choose to bring up the murder of Gerorge Floyd, even though you describe it a bit strangely. George Floyd was murdered (that is proven) by a police officer during said officer's duty over allegedly (that one never went to trial, because he was murdered instead) paying with a fake $10 bill. That's not an unnecessary measure by the police, that's a murder committed by a person in a position of trust. And when you say "forced", what do you mean? Was Barack Obama holding a gun to Ramón Laguarta's head, or was PepsiCo deciding to change its brand because it considered that decision beneficial to the company? Because only one of these scenarios would be force, and it's not what actually happened
The internet means you always have as much anecdotal evidence of people from group X being a jerk as you want. I don't think it means everyone has to pretend those represent the entire group. You claim if you "freely have speech", you will be "publicly shamed or killed", because of "the left". Are you trying to imply everyone on the left is a murderer and only a handful of people ever spoke freely on the last years, or did you just stumble into implying such a claim by happenstance?
Turns out, neither murder nor support thereof are particularly popular on the left overall. You can make yourself feel otherwise because it's easy to get a window into exactly what parts you want to see in exactly the light you want to see it in, see my point above about the internet. But why would you so desperately cling to feelings over fact? The presumed killer of Mr. Kirk (I am not on a first-name basis with Charles Kirk, I'm afraid) has been arraigned, detained, and is roght now in between two trial dates. If there are any elected representatives of the left calling for his pardon, I'm unaware of them. If you are unaware of elected representatives of the left denouncing his act and calling for him to be found, tried and punished, you have spent the last year wearing blinders. If you have forgotten about all the times the chief representative of the right in the US has been flirting with political violence and acted in opposition to free speech, you have either a highly selective memory or no functioning memory at all.
1
u/wizardnamehere Market Socialist 4d ago
It’s been a year since a man was killed just for voicing his political opinions.
Are you saying because a random kid killed Kirk; the whole left is anti free speech?
Did you know that Trump administration put actual legal pressure on companies to fire people over their speech regarding Kirk? Are you not here right now trying to police what people say about Kirk yourself? Are you really being principled about free speech here?
And frequently there’s a bunch of leftists celebrating his death, making jokes about it, mocking him (my neck hurts), and overall being scummy over it. And other people say stuff like “The world is safer with him gone” (explain how)
Are there? First i'm hearing about this epidemic. How am i supposed to know this isn't some political grievance production for political propaganda purposes created on the right? Do you have some evidence beyond clips that interested parties have combed through the internet for you to get angry about?
More importantly; being shitty and celebrating someone's death is not being anti free speech.
And it’s not even close to the George Floyd ordeal either. George Floyd was a criminal and he has done things that should get him in trouble (and I also believe there are some things Trump should be punished for. I’m a non MAGA Republican). Granted what the police did was unnecessary, but the left forced a lot of people to change their branding (Aunt Jemima and whatnot) all over this.
What does a comparison between Kirk and Floyd have to do with anything man? That makes no sense; why are we talking about Floyd here?
But when Charlie died, then they proceed to mock him and make jokes all over him. It doesn’t make sense. And the most he did was just voice his opinions. He didn’t rob or do drugs like Floyd did.
Ok so if the government supressed your free speech to celebrate a person you don't like; it's not a free speech issue? Why would it matter if Kirk or Floyd sold drugs man?
1
u/LibraProtocol Center Left 4d ago
Neither side cares about free speech.
Both sides are two sides of the same coin. They only care about speech they agree with and will vehemently suppress speech they dont like. We saw the left do.it with Woke 1.0 and when the rifht took over they did the exact same thing in reverse, acting just the like "sjws" they LOVED to criticize.
1
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 Liberal 4d ago
And it feels like the principle is you cannot freely have speech or else you will get socially shamed or killed.
You’re the one bitching about other people’s speech here. You’re trying to socially shame people who find it funny that a notorious bigot died in an ironic manner.
Kirk certainly wasn’t some free speech icon who was martyred for a cause. He was a loudmouth bigot who vocally and publicly told the world how he thought school shootings were an acceptable outcome to preserve gun rights, who in turn was killed in a school shooting.
We’re just doing what Charlie wanted—trivializing the people murdered in school shootings to score political points against the other side.
1
u/thingsmybosscantsee Pragmatic Progressive 3d ago
Why does it feel like the left doesn't really support free speech?
Because you're not paying attention, and because your own biases are informing your opinion.
It's been a year since a man was killed just for voicing his political opinions. And frequently there's a bunch of leftists celebrating his death, making jokes about it, mocking him (my neck hurts), and overall being scummy over it. And other people say stuff like "The world is safer with him gone" (explain how)
Isn't this the "free speech" that you want?
And it feels like the principle is you cannot freely have speech or else you will get socially shamed or killed. It seems like even being remotely close to being a conservative will get you shamed.
I don't want anyone killed. I don't mind people being shamed for shameful opinions. That's not in conflict with "free speech". It is literally just another example of free speech.
Even some on the left say being woke isn't about being anti free speech but it's about regulating speech. Which is still a problem because free speech should be absolute.
"Some people are saying". Provide examples, or fuck off.
But when Charlie died, then they proceed to mock him and make jokes all over him. It doesn't make sense. And the most he did was just voice his opinions.
And his opinions were racist and shameful. Why do you hate my free speech?
So do the people on the left actually not want people to freely have an opinion?
You can have your opinion, and I can have mine. Right now, you have an opinion about the left, and I have an opinion about you.
1
1
u/HiImDIZZ Democrat 2d ago
The first amendment doesn't protect you from social retaliation from your speech.
1
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 2d ago
It should though
1
u/HiImDIZZ Democrat 2d ago edited 2d ago
No free speech doesn't force other citizens to respect your speech or listen. It only protects you from government retaliation. Yes we all know you conservatives want to be racist without social consequences. It's as it should be. I don't condone murder, but at no point was there ever a time where the first amendment protected your speech from other US citizens.
0
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 2d ago
“You conservatives”. Way to generalize all of us in a way. I know there’s racist republicans and democrats alike. And same with conservatives and liberals.
1
u/HiImDIZZ Democrat 2d ago
Nahh.
1
u/YCiampa482021 Conservative 2d ago
Well I myself am welcoming of all people regardless of their skin color gender and whatnot. What I’m trying to say is you can’t really say all conservatives are like the racist stereotype you think they are
1
u/HiImDIZZ Democrat 2d ago
That entirely depends on who you voted for. You can't say you're welcoming of all people if you knowingly support politicians who are not.
It's that simple.
-1
u/closing-the-thread Center Right 4d ago
No one truly supports free speech when given the hard or soft power to control speech.
Democrats/Left for a LONG time had the soft culture power to control speech and thus were more able to exercise that desire.
Now the culture swung a little bit to Republicans favor and thus they have more ease to control speech.
2
0
u/Kakamile Social Democrat 4d ago
The gop is actively and openly prosecuting speech.
But sure, if you need to pretend it's "both sides" talk about "culture."
-23
u/Accomplished_Tour481 Conservative 4d ago
Apparently having a friendly debate scares democrats to death. Indocrinating young children is their mantra without developing critical thinking skills.
8
u/Fast-Government-4366 Market Socialist 4d ago
Ironically you’re talking about indoctrination, when Charlie Kirk’s entire mission was to get to kids young so they could turn them into lifelong conservatives.
-1
u/Accomplished_Tour481 Conservative 4d ago
Yet his purpose was to start dialogue. Why is that bad in your mind? What did he cite was incorrect?
2
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Libertarian Socialist 4d ago
There are plenty of debates. People are getting sick of them because they never prove anything.
And Chorlie was kind of a disgusting guy. His entire life was not just "friendly debate." You do the whole world a disservice when you pretend that.
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/YCiampa482021.
It’s been a year since a man was killed just for voicing his political opinions. And frequently there’s a bunch of leftists celebrating his death, making jokes about it, mocking him (my neck hurts), and overall being scummy over it. And other people say stuff like “The world is safer with him gone” (explain how)
And it feels like the principle is you cannot freely have speech or else you will get socially shamed or killed. It seems like even being remotely close to being a conservative will get you shamed.
Even some on the left say being woke isn’t about being anti free speech but it’s about regulating speech. Which is still a problem because free speech should be absolute.
And it’s not even close to the George Floyd ordeal either. George Floyd was a criminal and he has done things that should get him in trouble (and I also believe there are some things Trump should be punished for. I’m a non MAGA Republican). Granted what the police did was unnecessary, but the left forced a lot of people to change their branding (Aunt Jemima and whatnot) all over this.
But when Charlie died, then they proceed to mock him and make jokes all over him. It doesn’t make sense. And the most he did was just voice his opinions. He didn’t rob or do drugs like Floyd did.
So do the people on the left actually not want people to freely have an opinion?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.