Charlie Kirk has been shot and as sadley died

[BaggieBlood]

At last one these ****s could shoot straight.

Only someone who can't spell sadly would think this was sad.

I lot of absolute *******s are winning around the world.

Live by the gun you die by the gun.

[Omegstrat6]

At last one these ****s could shoot straight.

Only someone who can't spell sadly would think this was sad.

I lot of absolute *******s are winning around the world.

Live by the gun you die by the gun.

Kirk held not only "controversial" but hateful beliefs and sought to spread them amongst young people under the guise of "free speech". Apparently, he was a great debater but whilst it is surely a good thing to get younger, college age, people interested in politics (after all they can vote) numerous clips of his "Prove me wrong" tours show an older, better read and more articulate man v younger, often naive, less well read and certainly less articulate students. Hardly a fair match and consequently he makes many look foolish, mostly because they haven't properly thought through their beliefs. If he wanted something approaching real credence in debating "liberal"ideas, he should perhaps have picked on some-one bigger. Maybe debate some-one like James O'Brien on his LBC show rather than go to the Oxford Union when he was in the UK for example.

Can't say that I think Kirk was wrong on everything (people rarely are) but he certainly held misogynistic, homophobic and racist ideals and, yes, if he didn't exactly "live by the gun", he was vehemently anti-gun control. But does that really mean he deserved to get shot?

Whatever people think of Trump and MAGA, the US is not Russia, it is not China and people with opposing viewpoints are allowed platforms and can have their say. Violence should surely always be a last resort anyway, but if used in place of debate in a democracy where free speech is allowed then it only serves to erode that free speech and beget further violence. Which is exactly what is unfurling at the moment.

Killing Kirk was not only an appalling act from a democratic or humanitarian point of view, it was also self defeating in terms of wanting to stop his influence as the MAGA lot are already making him a martyr.

Don't cry for Kirk's beliefs, fine, but he was also a husband and father to young children. Maybe we should feel sad about that, as well as feeling sad that the present divisive climate in the US better enables such shootings to happen in the first place.

[BaggieBlood]

Why is it not free speech if the president elect of the Oxford union celebrates his killing, but it was ok for him to make life difficult, for many years, for lots of minority groups, to make money after failing at university and then seeing a niche market to spread hate at places he never graduated from.

That hate is spreading to hear now with USA based Israeli billionaires funding the likes of Tommy Robinson and other hate mongers like Bannon and Musk spreading their hate here.

They'll get the easily led to do the hard yards and then profit from it.

There are so many better people to mourn than this "martyr".

[baggieal]

Why is it not free speech if the president elect of the Oxford union celebrates his killing, but it was ok for him to make life difficult, for many years, for lots of minority groups, to make money after failing at university and then seeing a niche market to spread hate at places he never graduated from.

That hate is spreading to hear now with USA based Israeli billionaires funding the likes of Tommy Robinson and other hate mongers like Bannon and Musk spreading their hate here.

They'll get the easily led to do the hard yards and then profit from it.

There are so many better people to mourn than this "martyr".

You have a point Blood. That said this president elect of Oxford should not be glorifying in the death of any person as Oxford is a prestigious university so he should be thrown out. How would he like it if people were making disgusting remarks about him which would equally be sick.

My view is Corbyn and Abbott are nutters but that said - they are allowed their views and some may agree with them.

I don?t like Trump but having travelled the US this summer a lot do but he?s their leader and not ours. That said - my view is our leader is the worst PM ever and hey I don?t vote because they are all in it to line their own pockets. That?s what people with money do!

I see more without money far happier than those with!

[Omegstrat6]

Why is it not free speech if the president elect of the Oxford union celebrates his killing, but it was ok for him to make life difficult, for many years, for lots of minority groups, to make money after failing at university and then seeing a niche market to spread hate at places he never graduated from.

That hate is spreading to hear now with USA based Israeli billionaires funding the likes of Tommy Robinson and other hate mongers like Bannon and Musk spreading their hate here.

They'll get the easily led to do the hard yards and then profit from it.

There are so many better people to mourn than this "martyr".

Don't disagree with your last sentence at all Blood but IMHO, whilst I firmly believe that those-of any stripe-who engage in hate speech should have consequences for doing so, those consequence should not include being assassinated. Accept this and it's a dangerous and slippery slope leading to an escalation of violence and erosion of free speech.

A big part of the issue is the concept of "free speech" itself and I personally believe that this should not simply mean that anyone has a legal right to say or post anything they want and that it is only right to identify hate speech for example, particularly where it concerns inherent characteristics (e.g. skin colour, age, ***, disability etc)

As for our own laws on free speech, whilst the consistency of their application might certainly be questioned, I do believe that the UK has it about right with the Public Order Act, especially since the amendment removed the opportunity for some to claim they felt offended by some-one simply stating beliefs that opposed their own rather than proving that there was intent to incite hatred or violence.

And yes, you are right, Kirk certainly did monetise his beliefs and actions but then that is surely not really surprising, especially in the US where TV evangelists, as one example, have long done the same. As you say, there will always be those to exploit the more easily led and not just the far right.