The Crazies Won't Shut Up!

[EvilCat Breath]

It's called the free market. In this case it simply regulated itself.
Kirk showed up peddling a product (hatred and ignorance) that nobody wanted and he failed.
They kicked him to the curb just like any failed product.
Are you trying to say these students should have been forced to allow Kirk to invade their campus and spew his vile vomit?
That's a bit fascist wouldn't you say?

That NOBODY wanted? If that were true, no one would have gotten a ticket. This is pure degenerate democrat. A few loudmouths shout down the speaker and claim they represent the majority. They have been doing that for decades now.

 

[MagicMike]

That NOBODY wanted? If that were true, no one would have gotten a ticket. This is pure degenerate democrat. A few loudmouths shout down the speaker and claim they represent the majority. They have been doing that for decades now.

Do you need some CHEESE to go with that WHINE?

 

[MagicMike]

Grow up and next time it's on

You're twisting yourself into a pretzel and getting stupid by the minute when it's pointed out

Freedom of speech is a guaranteed constitutional right. Deal with it or STFU already

You 're STILL here simp.

 

[MagicMike]

Why are you afraid to let people speak? If YOU have heard it all before you could at least let him speak to others. Why not? What are you afraid of?

I am afraid that morons like Charlie Kirk are making my country dumber by the minute.

 

[MagicMike]

That isn't how it works.

Shouting down a speaker to stop an event from proceeding is mob censorship, full stop. It gives the shouters the power to dictate what anyone else is able to say or to hear. The idea that a group — or even a single individual pulling a fire alarm or banging a cowbell — can decide what others can and cannot listen to is incompatible with pluralism. It replaces the free exchange of ideas with a system of “might makes right,” and it is especially egregious for this to happen in the university context where the free exchange of ideas and the freedom to seek out any information is most important.

This is so obvious that, I believe, those who make this argument either do so in bad faith, or have not thought through the implications of this position. For example, no one would argue that one has a right to go to a university orchestra concert and play electric guitar from their seat. It is equally hard to imagine that those sympathetic to shout-downs at Yale and Hastings would make the same argument if, for example, a pro-choice speaker was shut down by rowdy pro-life protestors, or if a student shouted down his professor for the duration of class. And yet all of these examples logically follow from the asserted free speech “right” for some audience members to take over an event.

In each of these cases, a government or university administrator stepping in to stop the individual or mob from dictating what can be said reflects a positive duty to protect freedom of speech. The necessity of free speech, and, in particular, the ability to voice unorthodox and unpopular views on a college campus, is something that I have written about so frequently and at such length, I will attempt to be brief here.
________________________
It’s not just the right to speak that is at issue in these cases. Justice Marshall pointed to a corresponding right to hear in his dissent in Kleindienst v. Mandel:


Justice Marshall was not the first to do so. Frederick Douglass wrote about the right to hear following the shout-down of an abolitionist event he organized in Boston 1860 by outraged members of the public:

Shouting down speakers is mob censorship: Part 14 of answers to arguments against free speech from Nadine Strossen and Greg Lukianoff

Shouting down a speaker to stop an event from proceeding is mob censorship, full stop. It gives the shouters the power to dictate what anyone else is able to say or to hear.

www.thefire.org

Fake news

 

[Zincwarrior]

He was invited......

Why? By whom? How much was he paid?

The best answer for these morons is to just ignore them while there and publicize their stupidity.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You 're STILL here smp.

Freedom of speech means that the government cannot infringe on the speaker. Other people or organizations can shut the troublemakers up any time they want. After all, look at how many schools shut parents up when they complain about child abuse in the schools.

The way to shut the "protesters" up is for the ones who came to hear the speaker drag the protesters out of the building by the hair.

 

[MagicMike]

Freedom of speech means that the government cannot infringe on the speaker. Other people or organizations can shut the troublemakers up any time they want. After all, look at how many schools shut parents up when they complain about child abuse in the schools.

The way to shut the "protesters" up is for the ones who came to hear the speaker drag the protesters out of the building by the hair.

Cutting Charlie Kirks head off and placing it on a spike to serve as an example of why some animals eat their young wouldn't be a bad idea either.

 

[Delldude]

Fake news

You can come out from under your rock now, Mikey.

And Thurgood Marshall is a liar...................

It’s not just the right to speak that is at issue in these cases. Justice Marshall pointed to a corresponding right to hear in his dissent in Kleindienst v. Mandel:

[T]he right to speak and hear — including the right to inform others and to be informed about public issues — are inextricably part of that process. The freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin. But the coin itself is the process of thought and discussion. The activity of speakers becoming listeners and listeners becoming speakers in the vital interchange of thought is the “means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.”

Justice Marshall was not the first to do so. Frederick Douglass wrote about the right to hear following the shout-down of an abolitionist event he organized in Boston 1860 by outraged members of the public:

There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments. Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Cutting Charlie Kirks head off and placing it on a spike to serve as an example of why some animals eat their young wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Neither would gutting those protesters and feeding their livers to the Haitians. As an homage to Haitian leader Barbeque! Or just gutting them and leaving the bodies to rot as an object lesson to other loudmouth protesters.

 

[IM2]

My great nephew went to Florida State University to hear Charlie Kirk speak there.
Unfortunately the Leftist barbarians shouted Charlie down and would not let him speak.
How's that for "freedom of speech" in an institute of supposedly "higher learning"?

I wrote an email to President McCullough and told him what I thought of the nonsense he permitted.
Please give him a piece of your mind:

president@fsu.edu

As Dennis Prager said, "When you go to college, you get dumber and meaner."

Charlie Kirk is one of the crazies.

 

[MagicMike]

Neither would gutting those protesters and feeding their livers to the Haitians. As an homage to Haitian leader Barbeque! Or just gutting them and leaving the bodies to rot as an object lesson to other loudmouth protesters.

You really aren't too keen on 1st Amendment rights are you?

 

[MagicMike]

Freedom of speech means that the government cannot infringe on the speaker. Other people or organizations can shut the troublemakers up any time they want. After all, look at how many schools shut parents up when they complain about child abuse in the schools.

The way to shut the "protesters" up is for the ones who came to hear the speaker drag the protesters out of the building by the hair.

They probably couldn't do that because Charlie Kirk fans are a bunch of limp-wristed, latte sipping man bun enthusiasts who couldn't punch their way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You really aren't too keen on 1st Amendment rights are you?

You don't even know what the 1st Amendment is. Read it, slowly. Try to comprehend each word.

Here it is, so you don't have to look it up.

Amendment I​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First word, Congress. Or, for the terminally stupid CONGRESS. Not schools, fellow students, the PTA or your next door neighbor.

How did CONGRESS interfere with the protesters, who should have gotten the shit kicked out of them by not CONGRESS shitkickers.

 

[MagicMike]

You don't even know what the 1st Amendment is. Read it, slowly. Try to comprehend each word.

Here it is, so you don't have to look it up.

Amendment I​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First word, Congress. Or, for the terminally stupid CONGRESS. Not schools, fellow students, the PTA or your next door neighbor.

How did CONGRESS interfere with the protesters, who should have gotten the shit kicked out of them by not CONGRESS shitkickers.

Try to keep up here Simp.
Congress did not interfere with these patriot's right to heckle the mutant cretin Charlie Kirk off of campus.
Nor did Congress interfere with Kirk's right to try to give his speech.
So no harm no foul.
I don't know WHY these MAGAt cultist snowflakes have been WHINING here all day about "freedom of speech."
We both agree that nobody's First Amendment rights were violated in any way.
As for why the KKKirkers didn't just drag the protesters out by the hair and kick the shit out of them....
who knows?
Maybe they didn't want to spill their carmel lattes or mess up their man buns.

 

[Independent thinker]

I am afraid that morons like Charlie Kirk are making my country dumber by the minute.

So, you are for suppressing speech.

 

[MagicMike]

So, you are for suppressing speech.

Not legitimate speech.

 

[Independent thinker]

Not legitimate speech.

LOL. And who is the judge of legitimate? Is that what the first amendment says, guaranteed free speech for only those who are legitimate or their speech is legitimate? I don't remember that wording.

 

[MagicMike]

LOL. And who is the judge of legitimate? Is that what the first amendment says, guaranteed free speech for only those who are legitimate or their speech is legitimate? I don't remember that wording.

It's like this simp.
If we are both looking at a picture of a zebra and I say "wow....cool looking zebra!"
And then you say "well, actually it's not a zebra.....I think it's an ostrich."
Sure, technically we are both entitled to our own "opinions" but one opinion (mine) is factual, accurate, and informed and the other (yours) is pure bullshit and misleading.
They are not "equal."
Not every fucked up belief or opinion deserves to be protected. Especially when it comes to vile, dishonest hate speech like we hear from the likes of Charlie Kirk, Mark Levin, Dan Bongino, etc.
In a perfect world we would be allowed to cut out the tongues of these lying hatemongers and string them onto cordage for necklaces.

 

[Dr.Destructo]

video of charlie kirk at fsu - Search Videos

www.bing.com

Thanks for the video.

Those so-called "journalists" are fuktard Dems. Saying Kirk goes to campuses to "push his right wing agenda".
BULLSHIT.

He goes to colleges to answer questions people have. Charlie doesn't initiate anything, he's there for his view points IF they want to hear them. If not, he keeps silent.