Oh look, more anti-free speech from Vance.

[Marener]

You treat his words as if they were the law. They were just his opinion.

Some people are pretending that there isn’t a significant anti-gay marriage movement. There is.

 

[Rambunctious]

The vast majority of illegal aliens are just here to work and protect their families.

And they are not targeted by ICE... criminal aliens are the focus... so just stop the bull...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Some people are pretending that there isn’t a significant anti-gay marriage movement. There is.

Of course there is. Why are you surprised? Nobody else is. I'm gay, and I don't care. Kirk's words didn't offend me; his words did not instruct others to ban me or my sexual preference. I'm not going to spread falsehoods about him, either.

By the way, did you watch the video?

 

[Rambunctious]

Some people are pretending that there isn’t a significant anti-gay marriage movement. There is.

Who is pretending that?...

 

[BluesLegend]

"Report those who celebrate Charlie Kirk death to employers, Vance says"

Meh, God knows who they are. A bunch of Dems just volunteered to burn in hell for eternity.

 

[Marener]

Who is pretending that?...

The person I responded to.

 

[Mack The Finger]

"Report those who celebrate Charlie Kirk death to employers, Vance says"

Yep, Vance wants to stop people saying negative things about Charlie Kirk.

Maybe he is worrying about a rerun !

​

 

[Rambunctious]

Marener My cousin who I grew up with is gay and is in a gay marriage of 25 years... longer than I was married... lol

 

[fncceo]

The right is trying to get people fired for just disagreeing. And since the authoritarian Trump administration is behind it, people are intimidated by the threat of government repercussions to comply.

Don't worry, you can't get fired if you don't have a job.

 

[dudmuck]

Yeah, right, that has about a snow ball's chance in hell, and even if overturned would still not ban gay marriage.

But that's besides the point, he said 'they want to ban gay marriage', not identifying who 'they' even are. I haven't heard any, but a small minority, ever express that they wanted gay marriage banned. The state can marry whoever and whatever they want, it's meaningless except for legal ramifications.

Obergefell v Hodges prevents states from banning gay marriage. Most states support gay marriage, but a few would soon ban if Obergefell v Hodges went down.

 

[frigidweirdo]

View attachment 1162558

Yeah sure, the left hates it when people attack people for the color of their skin, or their gender, or their sexuality.

The right have decided that bullying is perfectly acceptable, that you can say whatever you like about people for the way they were born.

What they can't cope with is if you attack their people.

Look at the 2016 Presidential election.

Trump attacking EVERYONE and then Hillary says one thing saying MAGA supporters are dumb ***** and they go MENTAL. They can't cope. "This proves she should not be president, how the **** dare she, no one presidential attacks others."

If you don't see the irony there, you never will.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Obergefell v Hodges prevents states from banning gay marriage. Most states support gay marriage, but a few would soon ban if Obergefell v Hodges went down.

It's just pretend marriage. Personally I don't care what two people do until they try to force me to accept it or try and get at children

 

[Marener]

Of course there is. Why are you surprised? Nobody else is. I'm gay, and I don't care. Kirk's words didn't offend me; his words did not instruct others to ban me or my sexual preference. I'm not going to spread falsehoods about him, either.

By the way, did you watch the video?

Lawrence v Texas was only decided in 2003. If you read Dobbs, it’s absolutely within reason that they would overturn it.

Hell, Thomas is still on the court and he was opposed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then we'll have to disagree here. His position does not preclude him from exercising his right to free speech.

Because he and Trump are leaders of the civilian government, they are still civilians, and as such, they are still entitled to their First Amendment rights.

It doesn't stop him exercising his freedom of speech. HOWEVER his "freedom of speech" is only being exercised when he's talking in PRIVATE.

That is the only time they get First Amendment rights.

They can't be prosecuted for speaking as President or VP in the first place.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It doesn't stop him exercising his freedom of speech. HOWEVER his "freedom of speech" is only being exercised when he's talking in PRIVATE.

Not true. It applies to public and private speech.

He is not protected from the consequences of his speech, however.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lawrence v Texas was only decided in 2003. If you read Dobbs, it’s absolutely within reason that they would overturn it.

Hell, Thomas is still on the court and he was opposed.

I see. But that's pure speculation at this point.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Essentially the right want to control speech if they don't like it, and make it free if they do. Kind of fascist to me.

Correct.

It is in fact fascist – this is who and what conservatives are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Deleted five (5) posts for off-topic discussion. Illegal immigration is not the subject of this thread. The impact of JD Vance's remarks on free speech on the Charlie Kirk Show IS. Kindly stay on topic, if you will.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That is the only time they get First Amendment rights.

They can't be prosecuted for speaking as President or VP in the first place.

It isn't for you to dictate where he gets to exercise his rights.

You can't lecture him about his supposed want to suppress speech when you're demanding when and where he practices his.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Correct.

It is in fact fascist – this is who and what conservatives are.

So Charlie was assassinated over basically speech... you should rethink whatever you're blabbering about now