Bondi went too far, and her reversal is a good sign.
The place to police the hate in our midst is the private sector. A strong culture of intolerance for violence keeps the desire to involve the government at bay.
We were snookered into it, same way we were snookered into using “gender” when we meant “sex”. Got to be conscious of what language we use. Hopefully Pam Bondi learned something, and doesn’t want to be a demagogue.
The far-left are the best modern language-manipulators I have known.
The latest now is the far-left announcing they are not going to come out in favour of chastising employees or public figures or teachers for celebrating Charlie Kirk's death...because....get this --- they do not believe in Cancel Culture.
Yes, and when they resume power, they will go right back to practicing cancel culture. It's like how they flipped the script on violence against the police. In the summer of 2020 cops were villains, as exemplified in the “ACAB” (All Cops Are Bastards) graffiti scrawling and rhetoric associated with the protests/riots. Violence against them was widespread (injuries to law enforcement in the thousands) and either justified or swept under the rug. Then came J6, and the police became heroes, the last line of defense when “Democracy” hung in the balance. Then the left chucked “due process” for non-violent J6 participants out the window and engaged in a massive violation of civil liberties through selective prosecution and upgrading misdemeanors to felonies. We can therefore expect more shameless flip-flopping whenever these issues of cancel culture, political violence, hate speech, due process, “Threats to Our Democracy,” and “The Constitution” become the rhetorical flash point for a given situation.
Well said, Daniel. These are manipulation tactics Machiavelli would have been proud of.
They often get away with it because many normal persons in the West deal with one another in a more or less high-trust manner. They do not realize that there are other ways used by the dishonourable. Or that somehow, they believe they will always spot a con-artist.
I'm afraid the tactics can be quite mind-bending, though. The average person does not expect this, nor can they readily unscramble it.
It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. The inventors of "Anti-speech" are now going to lecture us, the victims, because it's now come back to bite them in the ass!!
Have you noticed African Americans, "Black Folk," were never "snookered into" any language use rules? They use any words they want, to me, to you, to each other, and about me, about you and about each other; and use any words any place they want, in church, in court, in schools, in music, sports anywhere and at anything. African Americans are the true believers, supporters and practice Freedom of Speech, and nobody better say a damned word to them about it.
That would be hard to prove, since it is a big generalization. I would say people who are educated get tricked into certain beliefs that less educated don’t.
Maybe true but she is obviously out of her league currently. It's September and we are waiting indictments and real action. Fauci, Schiff, Soros, Brennan, Comey et al... Get to work Pam .
I think it would be better for you to admit that you don’t know what fulfillment of the position she holds requires and be thankful that she too reports to the President.
You could research that. The Docket might be full, The juries need voir dire to be seated. The evidence has to be presented and accepted, after discovery. The prosecution and defense need to appointed and research completed. Doesn’t take a week.
Bondi's career didn't start at the federal level. She was instrumental in implementing unconstitutional laws in Florida stating that if she was given the opportunity she'd do the same things all over again. Since arriving at the fed, she's botched the Epstein file release, taken an anti-2nd amendment stance (what a surprise) and now an anti-1st amendment stance. She needs to go.
She has certainly blundered numerous times and is likely to blunder again. I agree those things are mistakes; none of them are remotely comparable to the atrocious Garland, for example, or Gonzalez, or Holder, or Meese. Or Reno, or the appalling AGs of Carter or Ford or Nixon. U.S. AG has arguably the worst record of consistent, stupendous failure of any cabinet level position.
Here’s a list of U.S. Attorney Generals (at the bottom).
I guess if your comparison model begins at the bottom and progresses upwards, she's not that bad. My expectation is that the position starts at perfect and points are removed for each fallacy. I expect better.
i started with the most successful i could find, Lincoln’s and FDR’s, and she’s outperformed them. One could maybe debate about some of the earlier AG’s but they didn’t have much action at the highest courts.
We can agree she’s had some blunders, but few people seem to get it... don’t feel lonesome it isnt only this comment stream that doesn’t understand what they are seeing right now… she’s still done better than anything we’ve seen in our lifetimes. By far, actually.
The file release request came from a reporter asking her when “the List” would be released. She said it was on her desk. An attorney never leaves a List on her desk. The File was on her desk, i.e. ready to search. I started to search the status of this file and why no previous admin had not tried the case. I found the files were locked in the courts, and were not being released because of the victims and the innocent falsely accused. A FOIA was refused. At some point the victims wanted to testify publicly. Yet somehow the onus is on the current administration after Epstein is long gone. And it’s no longer a focus of the DOJ. Game over. On to Russia Gate.
Can't speak to her FL AG role, I paid little attention to her. OTOH....perhaps her orders are to dig more holes. For every action there is a distraction, just sayin'.
Bondi is not an elected official, she's is nominated and approved. Now, looking at the Biden administration you had not just elected officials but nearly an entire administration and party seeking to eliminate the voice of the right altogether whether in their statements live to the American people, in congress and on social media.. I find that hardly comparable with Bondi's ill advised statement which was immediately walked back. .
You can't make that call based on one person's idiotic statement that is walked back in 24 hours or less. You have to come up with a lot more evidence to make your statement be true.
Nope. Just words. They were imprisoned for words alone, because the right wing hates freedom of speech for opinions they disagree with. Trump's FCC just got Jimmy Kimmel fired after threatening action against his employer for a joke. This administration is the most anti-free-speech government in American history, and that is extremely dangerous.
“Biden” did not imprison anyone. Some, not all, of the J6 rioters were charged with crimes; some, not all, were found guilty by a jury of their peers for crimes, including violence resulting in the death of a police officer. Trump pardoned everyone who had already been convicted, including those who committed violent crimes and killed police officer.
Perhaps not personally since he was dementia riddled, but his administration was epitomized a totalitarian state with threats to the people and the worst was designating religious Catholics and parents as terrorists. Sit down and shut up fool.
You draw the wrong conclusion. Bondi publicly revealed what the establishment is actually thinking and that was the mistake. The government has gone completely off the rails at home and in foreign policy. Washington is racing towards Fascism.
Did you see the statements made by by the congressman for Louisiana, I believe, threatening people’s law and medical licenses and permits and jail for anyone deemed to be “celebrating” ie- not properly mourning- Kirk’s death online.
I guess it depends on where you live. Here in America, there aren't supposed to be any limits. Free speech is Free speech. The issue is that many people consider punishment by employers or such things as infringement. IT IS NOT! You have the right to say whatever comes into your head, but if that happens to ruin the reputation of someone else they have the right to exact punishment.
Now.. Europe? There is no free speech unless you are on the current winning side.
Exactly. If a condition of your employment includes a code of conduct document that limits your ability to post certain things on social media, then that has nothing to do with your rights as afforded by the constitution and everything to do with your “at will” employment.
No. There is no use of the term "hate speech" in the law. There are certain utterances which may be unlawful, such as slander or libel, credible threats of actual harm, incitement to imminent lawlessness, and perhaps a few others. The rest is protected speech, and legal.
I have lived many years overseas where there is no freedom of speech as we understand it in the US. Singapore had a little “Speakers Corner in a park near downtown. As I understood it, one could hold an assembly there without a permit which would be required elsewhere. But unlike the US, a public figure could still sue a political opponent for libel and such cases were fairly common. So political speech tended to be very thin gruel, indeed. It was a beautiful, safe, orderly society but political expression was rather narrow.
I am sure Singapore has many excellences; I know its beauty only from photographs. But I also have read that there are many penalties under their laws which simply would not fly here. We are surely a dangerous nation in some ways, a young one, and armed. But we do cherish our rights and liberties, and the foundational principle that the former are beyond governmental revocation. I only hope we don't accidentally kill ourselves before we finally start to get grown up.
I think perhaps you’re not portraying the law as it is. There is no one, not even the Supreme Court, that has the power to deem something as “hate speech”. It’s possible to deem something as “incitement to lawlessness” but I don’t see that used much. In racial terms the crudest, most narrow minded description of another race isn’t hate speech. Accusing a political opponent in the loudest terms of seeking to destroy democracy isn’t hate speech. Publicly accusing an opponent falsely of doing something illegal, such as embezzlement is probably a tort, a civil issue, but not a crime unless someone reports it falsely to law enforcement.
So far at least, hate speech isn't a hate crime. This whole hate category is overkill imo. Crime is already well-defined by law. The hate overlay is manipulative.
Well, given the actual censorship and economic hardship perpetrated by the previous administration, it may be better she both says it and walks it back publicly, than if she had made one sort of noise in the press, and acted contrarily behind closed doors.
Perhaps, but I can certainly see how she feels when you read some of the posts…like we should be putting shotguns in our mouths. Remember, young people are reading this crap.
the general idea is speech can be criminally liable if it can be linked directly to acts of violence. Like a mafioso ordering a murder, or a person in a crowd shouting “kill those people!” and the crowd proceeds to commit mayhem on those people.
she’s off base about this, in my view, but let’s see how it rolls. She’s likely to abandon the idea i am guessing
Pam Bondi has certain similar characteristics to her current boss.
They both “say” things that are outrageous, or at least appear to be, but the things they “do” are of tremendously high value.
A key point is if a lawsuit against the administration appears in a biden or obama courtroom, you know instantly that it is a good policy that needs to be upheld, strengthened, made into the law of the land lol
Hey Matt - have you considered any articles debunking the supposed hate that legacy media is ascribing to CK vs what he actually said in context. Stephen King at least realized he stepped in it with his comments, NYT too, but there have been many other outlets taking so much of what CK said out of context.
excellent point. Charlie was smeared and tagged but when you go to his actual words - nothingburgers. Christian, wanting gay/trans to be healthy and happy with their bodies and not want to chop them up. Hardly hate speech.
Like the one I saw that said he said all black women lack brain capacity or some such comment, when he simply said in relation to a specific topic that Michelle Obama, Oprah, and Woopie didn't or something like that. Calling out specific people is not racist. You noticing that they are all of a specific gender or ethnicity... might be.
He was specifically saying that BECAUSE they all stated they were beneficiaries of affirmative action, they had stolen a white person's spot. He wasn't calling out random black women.
This is literally true -- except "non-black" would be more correct than "white", but that's a quibble. That is, in fact, what affirmative action (in its modern form) exists to do. It sounds vulgar to put it like that, but one should talk about vulgar things using vulgar phrases.
The problem may be that "hate speech" is defined by what aligns with our views (or not). Someone may consider Charlie Kirk saying he opposes all abortion to be hate speech. Someone else may consider someone saying transgender girls should be able to compete in girls' sports to be hate speech.
Neither are hate speech. They're just speech that you or I or anyone may personally agree or disagree with.
Yes. SO much out of context. I hardly listened to Charlie Kirk before this .. yet each quote I hear I look deeper and see how out of context it is. Even what he actually did say, like absolute views on abortion that I don't share, don't come from hate, they come from a different view.
“i will always stand against people who wish to establish their own personal values as a reason to kick others out of our movement.” - Charlie Kirk
I am pretty much an absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment and Kirk's speech and writing to my mind fall within it. It's not free speech unless that of people whose words I find appalling are permitted.
It should, but sadly I probably need to mention, go without saying that it follows I abhor his assassination.
But we don’t need to pretend Charlie Kirk was anything other than a "racist, homophobic, misogynistic... waste of human skin" (per Clever Pie) to affirm that principle.
There's a tragic irony that he was shot and that it was on the Utah Valley University campus given a) a student there was responsible for legislation permitting open carrying of guns on campuses in Utah; and b) that Kirk's position on gun control was, "it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
My take is anyone thinking he was a decent human being either didn't pay attention to what he said or, worse yet, agrees with him. A few samples which you could perhaps point to "context" that made these comments palatable:
- Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people — that’s a fact.
- I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it. “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.
- The philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.
- If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?
- There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.
- Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.
- Buy weapons, I keep on saying that. Buy weapons. Buy ammo. if you go into a public place, bring a gun with you and if you live in a state that doesn't allow you to do it, I got nothing for you, man. Thank goodness in Arizona we can carry and we carry.
You sir are wildly and likely willfully misinformed. If you spend a couple open minded minutes looking at what Charlie actually said, you should be embarrassed for this post. I'll address one of the items you list.
"I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it. “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Please see below for an analysis that has the statement you quoted in-context. Your characterization of the quote is completely divorced from the reality of what Charlie said. Shame on you. I'm really struggling how someone apparently so divorced from reality as you appear to be would subscribe to Matt Taibbi. I didn't think we had that sort here.
Thanks for the link. You raise a legitimate issue of mainstream over-simplification but I take it then you're in favor of requiring voter ID, a specific objection he raised in it.
I'm not. It's clear the intent of this proposed requirement is to take citizens who're likely to vote Democratic off voter roles. There is no data I know of showing any but very isolated instances of voter fraud.
Got any others?
As for who cares below, no citations and merely insult, so no value.
First, thank you for watching the video. What you presented is not oversimplification. It's changing the meaning to be diametrically opposed to what was said.
Further, voter ID has nothing to do with whether Charlie's quote as taken horribly and maliciously out of context. He's "racist, homophobic, misogynistic... waste of human skin" is far different from, "but I disagree with him on Voter ID".
Don't take my word. Listen to a gay black man who was friends with Charlie. He goes through the laundry list of Charlie's supposed sins. What I saw was a compassionate man who would typically treat people with grace and kindness. The video intro is unnecessarily long. Bounce around the hyperlinks to whatever hot button topic you want to explore.
To me, this video is gold. I would rather live in world where I disagree with half the population on policy solutions or philosophical points, instead of one where I believe half the population are mouth-breathing fill-in-the-blank-ists.
As much as I'd like to engage here, it's gotta be with print, softcopy of course. I don't have the time to watch videos and it's harder to analyze what you hear than what you read. Your first link was a bit over a minute and even with that I wish there'd been a transcript to quote from.
It may amuse you to learn I also post on the NYT and, while it's not true, one might well believe I go out of my way to antagonize its readers too.
I call BS. If you were so keen on getting to the source, every one of your characterizations of Charlie would not have been so displaced from reality. You took superficial intentionally divisive propaganda at face value and spread it with self-righteous confidence. Then, when presented with Charlie's own words, you cannot spend minutes (minutes!) to disabuse yourself of your vitriol. I find your feigned intellectualism self-aggrandizing and pathetic.
thanks for the long comment stating you believe fake news. AKA liars who distort what good people actually said. You are too lazy to look up the actual comments yourself. or you lack the brainpower to think outside the propaganda hole you enjoy swimming in.
Those sound like pretty radical but also interesting points of view. It’s a loss that no smart leftist took him up on his offer to discuss it in his Prove Me Wrong tent. Then we’d have seen what these crowd-pleasing statements were really made of. Why didn’t anyone step up, do you think? If Mencken could argue theology with the boys during the Scopes Trial, surely there was someone who had the chops to call Charlie down. Or was there?
To me it is not about what you supposedly feel. It is about whether you actively commit a crime or not.
I have always questioned the too-heavy emphasis on knowing the supposed motive for any crime The issue is that they did it . Or someone did it. Whatever they were feeling at the time.
Bondi overspoke, obviously. There is a line and it has to do with promoting and/or executing violence. That has been, and likely should be, the bright line for moving speech from "I hate it" to "you cannot do that". Calling for the masses to kill someone is different from "some days I wish he/she were dead". (Otherwise almost all couples would be in jail.)
Kirk had the right idea -- more speech (without threats of violence) is the answer. Having said all that, private actors have the ability to draw tighter circles of acceptable around the speech of their representatives. I would not want my children taught by a teacher who thinks Kirk and all his supporters should be dead -- my child may be one of them.
The line isn't even at promoting violence. Promoting violence is fine, legally, as long as it isn't connected to imminent lawless action. You can't yell "Kill that guy" while pointing at him at the head of a mob, but you can post "We should kill that guy" on social media.
Of course, employers may take a dim view of their employees promoting violence, as well they should.
The question should be; who's more radical right now? It changes and shifts. Right now the left is more deranged, violent and fascist. I spent two years on Tik Tok live trying to have conversations with lefties. They are incapable of debating. Every attempt at debate turns into personal insults and threats. They don't know what's going on. I recently debated with a friend who said "DEI was a right" and Trump "took her rights away." DEI is not a right. The far left doesn't know history, they have no clue as to what's going on, and they are brainwashed by the media. I was too. I was not a bad a person or evil. I was convinced Trump was a Russian agent and I feared for my country. They are being mislead. The media needs to be held accountable.
The media needs to be held accountable for acting as a tool here, but it is ultimately down to the individual to awaken. It is their personal responsibility.
This might be referred to as self-differentiation, or individuation. Individual evolution.
I am happy to debate you. Your premise, however, that one can soundly, reasonably debate which 1/2 of American society is “more deranged, violent, and fascist” is inherently flawed and suggests your debate skills may not be what you think they are.
And what do you think, I think my skills are? I attempted debate for 2 years with lefties, and they only had insults. They would shut the convo down because they couldn’t win the debate nor were they informed accurately. All they knew were the talking points the media fed them. Debate for me isn’t about winning, it’s about learning. I learned nothing from them other than, that they can’t debate.
Fuck hate speech. It was the biggest Pandora's Box mistake that unleashed a mass of evil to think that we can identify and prosecute people for an emotion.
If I speak, there is no way for you to definitively know if my words are evidence of hate. That is unless I say that I hate. But even then, what is in my heart at the time the words are delivered does not define the basis of any person. My kids have said "I hate you" when I have grounded them for misbehavior. Do you think that is real, or just a fit of passion?
Now if my kid said, "I hate you" and then shot me to kill me, it is the attempted killing that should get the legal attention and not the words said.
All that should matter is actions. Words are not actions. Words are not violence. However, words design to influence and encourage people to do violence, and other illegal actions should be considered actions themselves. Also, speech that attempts to cause or even support any action that is an infringement on our God-given rights as enshrined in the Constitution should be considered punishable actions.
I am an unabashed conservative, aligned with the right on most (but not all) issues. That said, the entire concept of “hate speech” escapes me. The same for “hate crime”. Speech is speech, and other than what is already covered by law (libel or slander for instance), why make a distinction? Based on what? The same with “hate crime”. Crime is crime. How do we attach hate to it objectively? Bindi was wrong, and I’m glad she backtracked.
The concept of "hate speech" was introduced in recent decades as a leftwing political tactic. A manipulation.
We lived without this concept prior to that. Most people under 40 probably do not remember such times. A relatively unified and balanced society does not need to worry unduly about it. The problems arise with the general social breakdown.
It's the chicken-and-the-egg situation....which came first, the social breakdown and the following "hate speech" or the "hate speech" and the following social breakdown?
My money is on the social breakdown having been planned and instigated first.
It’s the proverbial camel getting its nose under the edge of the tent. Once people accepted that years ago, look at all the subsequent bad ideas that have followed.
It amazes me that so many people go around seriously talking about "hate speech" as if it it a bona fide legal concept. As opposed to a GOTCHA! leftwing manipulation.
The lefties well and truly WANT you to believe in it...so they can use it in future against the gullibles.
I suspect the whole "human rights" movement of the 70s and beyond was actually a far-leftwing manipulation too. Part of the overall Neo-Marxist narrative to build a worldview which pushed the West in a direction beneficial for them. Not us.
Another mind-twisting tool. This, from the folks who actually wish to take away even basic rights. Working towards mass serfdom.
I don’t know. I think CNN is reasonably defending against the onslaught of violent rhetoric from elected Republican officials- not random yahoos on the internet - who are targeting “The Left” generally and encouraging retaliation for this crime.
IMAGINE if the rolls were reversed. A Democrat is president with majorities in the House and the Senate. Now imagine a revered figure on the left is murdered and POTUS and sitting congressman (in addition to full press media) vociferously call for retaliation even violence against the Right for this murder. Now imagine low and behold it comes out that the shooter of the Left Icon was born and raised in a very liberal household who had proudly voted for Biden.
YOU DON’T THINK FOX NEWS IS GOING TO POINT THAT OUT?!?!
Until further notice, we should strike the word "hate" from the English language. It no longer has any useful meaning, except as a political tool, a bludgeon to silence opposition. And to arouse emotions over logic and intentionally inculcate real, tangible hate - the real thing. Just as anti-racism = more racism, anti-hate = more hate. Young minds are the most vulnerable.
Once they have us thinking that feeling certain emotions is a sin, they will move on to indoctrinating everyone that thought-crime is next. Punishable by them, of course.
There are indeed reprehensible attitudes, according to what most of us consider morality. But we cannot criminalize this via the law unless it is really a crime.
We can let people know in other ways they are being reprehensible however. That it is outside our moral boundaries.
However, there are moral codes that most of us -- including many employers -- expect people to live up to in the public eye.
It was several thousand years of Judeo-Christianity that built the Superego of Western Civilization. Superego as in Freud's concept of the human psyche: Id/Ego/Superego. The Superego being man's moral conscience. We are born with the instinctual Id, but we need to develop the Superego.
There are many parts of the world that have no general moral conscience such as this. Just tribal affiliations. Thank your lucky stars that the West developed it. It has been our saving grace.
I'm kind of enjoying watching the mods of /r/politics and /r/news remove every single news item about the killer's text messages for being "off topic".
RED ALERT! GROYPER NARRATIVE IN DANGER! SCRAMBLE ALL MODS!
Bondi went too far, and her reversal is a good sign.
The place to police the hate in our midst is the private sector. A strong culture of intolerance for violence keeps the desire to involve the government at bay.
Pam has generally been a great AG, but she did go WAY off the rails here, and needed to get pulled up.
No AG should use the phrase "hate speech". That is not a live concept in American law, and it never, ever should be.
I agree. The "hate speech" notion is a cultural myth, introduced by the far leftwing as a political manipulation.
And now we have loads of people going around talking as if it is an authentic legal concept. They need to stop.
We were snookered into it, same way we were snookered into using “gender” when we meant “sex”. Got to be conscious of what language we use. Hopefully Pam Bondi learned something, and doesn’t want to be a demagogue.
The far-left are the best modern language-manipulators I have known.
The latest now is the far-left announcing they are not going to come out in favour of chastising employees or public figures or teachers for celebrating Charlie Kirk's death...because....get this --- they do not believe in Cancel Culture.
See the new twist?
Yes, and when they resume power, they will go right back to practicing cancel culture. It's like how they flipped the script on violence against the police. In the summer of 2020 cops were villains, as exemplified in the “ACAB” (All Cops Are Bastards) graffiti scrawling and rhetoric associated with the protests/riots. Violence against them was widespread (injuries to law enforcement in the thousands) and either justified or swept under the rug. Then came J6, and the police became heroes, the last line of defense when “Democracy” hung in the balance. Then the left chucked “due process” for non-violent J6 participants out the window and engaged in a massive violation of civil liberties through selective prosecution and upgrading misdemeanors to felonies. We can therefore expect more shameless flip-flopping whenever these issues of cancel culture, political violence, hate speech, due process, “Threats to Our Democracy,” and “The Constitution” become the rhetorical flash point for a given situation.
Well said, Daniel. These are manipulation tactics Machiavelli would have been proud of.
They often get away with it because many normal persons in the West deal with one another in a more or less high-trust manner. They do not realize that there are other ways used by the dishonourable. Or that somehow, they believe they will always spot a con-artist.
I'm afraid the tactics can be quite mind-bending, though. The average person does not expect this, nor can they readily unscramble it.
It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. The inventors of "Anti-speech" are now going to lecture us, the victims, because it's now come back to bite them in the ass!!
Have you noticed African Americans, "Black Folk," were never "snookered into" any language use rules? They use any words they want, to me, to you, to each other, and about me, about you and about each other; and use any words any place they want, in church, in court, in schools, in music, sports anywhere and at anything. African Americans are the true believers, supporters and practice Freedom of Speech, and nobody better say a damned word to them about it.
That would be hard to prove, since it is a big generalization. I would say people who are educated get tricked into certain beliefs that less educated don’t.
She corrected it during the same Oval Office meeting.
She is useless. This is her focus? We have shootings for decades. GOP generally the victims. Never prosecuted!
Hey man, I have free speech, and if Bondi's aligns with mine, hers can be free too.
Isn't that the formula? Agree with me = needs protection. Disagree with me = hate speech.
She has the best departmental record in Supreme Court cases of any Attorney General in history.
It is not even remotely close.
Maybe true but she is obviously out of her league currently. It's September and we are waiting indictments and real action. Fauci, Schiff, Soros, Brennan, Comey et al... Get to work Pam .
She has seated 4 grand juries in 4 states. Her plate is full.
Trials not happening. It’s how long since her confirmation? She has plenty of time for Hits on FOX. Camera ready.
I think it would be better for you to admit that you don’t know what fulfillment of the position she holds requires and be thankful that she too reports to the President.
You could research that. The Docket might be full, The juries need voir dire to be seated. The evidence has to be presented and accepted, after discovery. The prosecution and defense need to appointed and research completed. Doesn’t take a week.
Too many people react to her blondie appearance, as if it detracts from her legal abilities.
The question is how long had the unclassified intelligence been “on her desk” before she hired the Strike Team?
It’s September
Most likely there are other people involved in prioritizing her actions... She's not a lone ranger.
She’s in charge. She hired the strike team. I think the AG’s work is not easily visible to the populace.
She isn’t out of her depth.
But she does need to push all of those into courtrooms!
All former AG’s are free to criticize the current one. But frankly, the rest of us are only guessing.
not really a guess to look at cases w/l
Isn't less than one year a bit premature to be talking about "in history?"
Actually… nope.
OK. Next time a guy hits 20 homers by May 15, we'll just declare him the best home run hitter ever. Makes a lot of sense.
You’re welcome to rebut the fact I provided with your various ideas about other AGs and how they might compare
Bondi's career didn't start at the federal level. She was instrumental in implementing unconstitutional laws in Florida stating that if she was given the opportunity she'd do the same things all over again. Since arriving at the fed, she's botched the Epstein file release, taken an anti-2nd amendment stance (what a surprise) and now an anti-1st amendment stance. She needs to go.
She has certainly blundered numerous times and is likely to blunder again. I agree those things are mistakes; none of them are remotely comparable to the atrocious Garland, for example, or Gonzalez, or Holder, or Meese. Or Reno, or the appalling AGs of Carter or Ford or Nixon. U.S. AG has arguably the worst record of consistent, stupendous failure of any cabinet level position.
Here’s a list of U.S. Attorney Generals (at the bottom).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General
None of their departments have had the same level of success in the Supreme Court. It really isn’t very close.
You’re certainly welcome to point out a more successful one.
I guess if your comparison model begins at the bottom and progresses upwards, she's not that bad. My expectation is that the position starts at perfect and points are removed for each fallacy. I expect better.
i started with the most successful i could find, Lincoln’s and FDR’s, and she’s outperformed them. One could maybe debate about some of the earlier AG’s but they didn’t have much action at the highest courts.
We can agree she’s had some blunders, but few people seem to get it... don’t feel lonesome it isnt only this comment stream that doesn’t understand what they are seeing right now… she’s still done better than anything we’ve seen in our lifetimes. By far, actually.
The file release request came from a reporter asking her when “the List” would be released. She said it was on her desk. An attorney never leaves a List on her desk. The File was on her desk, i.e. ready to search. I started to search the status of this file and why no previous admin had not tried the case. I found the files were locked in the courts, and were not being released because of the victims and the innocent falsely accused. A FOIA was refused. At some point the victims wanted to testify publicly. Yet somehow the onus is on the current administration after Epstein is long gone. And it’s no longer a focus of the DOJ. Game over. On to Russia Gate.
Does she need to go or does the script she's been given need to change?
He MO hasn't changed since she was the Florida AG, so I don't believe she's just following orders. She digs her own holes.
Can't speak to her FL AG role, I paid little attention to her. OTOH....perhaps her orders are to dig more holes. For every action there is a distraction, just sayin'.
All she did was prove that the right wing is just as woke as the left when it comes to freedom of speech. They wish the first amendment didn't exist.
Yes but she retracted. Let’s see the left do that
Can you identify any time an elected official on the left threatened to prosecute people for speech on social media?
Bondi is not an elected official, she's is nominated and approved. Now, looking at the Biden administration you had not just elected officials but nearly an entire administration and party seeking to eliminate the voice of the right altogether whether in their statements live to the American people, in congress and on social media.. I find that hardly comparable with Bondi's ill advised statement which was immediately walked back. .
No, and she did walk back those comments, but I can mention an entire administration..Biden..that censored speech. Twitter files.
You can't make that call based on one person's idiotic statement that is walked back in 24 hours or less. You have to come up with a lot more evidence to make your statement be true.
Trump literally imprisoned foreign students for months because he didn't like their opinions about Israel
Hmm.. think there was some aggressive behavior that went along with that
Nope. Just words. They were imprisoned for words alone, because the right wing hates freedom of speech for opinions they disagree with. Trump's FCC just got Jimmy Kimmel fired after threatening action against his employer for a joke. This administration is the most anti-free-speech government in American history, and that is extremely dangerous.
FCC did get involved but many syndicates refused to air his show. Can you guys please try to at least make an attempt to report all info
So. Biden literally imprisoned Americans for years on a phony J6 peaceful protest.
“Biden” did not imprison anyone. Some, not all, of the J6 rioters were charged with crimes; some, not all, were found guilty by a jury of their peers for crimes, including violence resulting in the death of a police officer. Trump pardoned everyone who had already been convicted, including those who committed violent crimes and killed police officer.
Perhaps not personally since he was dementia riddled, but his administration was epitomized a totalitarian state with threats to the people and the worst was designating religious Catholics and parents as terrorists. Sit down and shut up fool.
Not true many held in prison without due process for long periods
You draw the wrong conclusion. Bondi publicly revealed what the establishment is actually thinking and that was the mistake. The government has gone completely off the rails at home and in foreign policy. Washington is racing towards Fascism.
Did she or is that your interpretation?
Did you see the statements made by by the congressman for Louisiana, I believe, threatening people’s law and medical licenses and permits and jail for anyone deemed to be “celebrating” ie- not properly mourning- Kirk’s death online.
It was Clay Higgins and let’s see how far he gets with that. Remember, it’s his free speech to say that. He doesn’t have any power
St. George Floyd..............enuff said. You are barely standing on that one crippled leg.
She didn’t reverse anything. She’ll be back, she’s Israel First not America First, and they want censorship.
If the speech is deemed hate speech, then aren't there limits to its legality, or am I confused about the issue?
I guess it depends on where you live. Here in America, there aren't supposed to be any limits. Free speech is Free speech. The issue is that many people consider punishment by employers or such things as infringement. IT IS NOT! You have the right to say whatever comes into your head, but if that happens to ruin the reputation of someone else they have the right to exact punishment.
Now.. Europe? There is no free speech unless you are on the current winning side.
Exactly. If a condition of your employment includes a code of conduct document that limits your ability to post certain things on social media, then that has nothing to do with your rights as afforded by the constitution and everything to do with your “at will” employment.
Many contracts also include "moral terpitude" clauses that can be used as cause for ending contracts or licenses of state licensed professionals.
Thanks for mentioning this.
No. There is no use of the term "hate speech" in the law. There are certain utterances which may be unlawful, such as slander or libel, credible threats of actual harm, incitement to imminent lawlessness, and perhaps a few others. The rest is protected speech, and legal.
I have lived many years overseas where there is no freedom of speech as we understand it in the US. Singapore had a little “Speakers Corner in a park near downtown. As I understood it, one could hold an assembly there without a permit which would be required elsewhere. But unlike the US, a public figure could still sue a political opponent for libel and such cases were fairly common. So political speech tended to be very thin gruel, indeed. It was a beautiful, safe, orderly society but political expression was rather narrow.
I am sure Singapore has many excellences; I know its beauty only from photographs. But I also have read that there are many penalties under their laws which simply would not fly here. We are surely a dangerous nation in some ways, a young one, and armed. But we do cherish our rights and liberties, and the foundational principle that the former are beyond governmental revocation. I only hope we don't accidentally kill ourselves before we finally start to get grown up.
I think perhaps you’re not portraying the law as it is. There is no one, not even the Supreme Court, that has the power to deem something as “hate speech”. It’s possible to deem something as “incitement to lawlessness” but I don’t see that used much. In racial terms the crudest, most narrow minded description of another race isn’t hate speech. Accusing a political opponent in the loudest terms of seeking to destroy democracy isn’t hate speech. Publicly accusing an opponent falsely of doing something illegal, such as embezzlement is probably a tort, a civil issue, but not a crime unless someone reports it falsely to law enforcement.
But they can use hate speech when a crime is committed
So far at least, hate speech isn't a hate crime. This whole hate category is overkill imo. Crime is already well-defined by law. The hate overlay is manipulative.
I think she withdrew that comment.
She did, and so she should have. Best if she had not said anything of the sort in the first place.
It is frightening she said it in the first place.
Well, given the actual censorship and economic hardship perpetrated by the previous administration, it may be better she both says it and walks it back publicly, than if she had made one sort of noise in the press, and acted contrarily behind closed doors.
It made realize how incompetent she is. Every law student knows how stupid she was. Attorney General? Nope.
Perhaps, but I can certainly see how she feels when you read some of the posts…like we should be putting shotguns in our mouths. Remember, young people are reading this crap.
Two words........Merrick Garland. He who made parents and religious Catholics out as terrorists in many speeches and actions. You lack perspective.
Point taken. But I expect nothing from a Democrat AG.
the general idea is speech can be criminally liable if it can be linked directly to acts of violence. Like a mafioso ordering a murder, or a person in a crowd shouting “kill those people!” and the crowd proceeds to commit mayhem on those people.
she’s off base about this, in my view, but let’s see how it rolls. She’s likely to abandon the idea i am guessing
Well, she did abandon it. She walked it back. As she should have
Pam Bondi has certain similar characteristics to her current boss.
They both “say” things that are outrageous, or at least appear to be, but the things they “do” are of tremendously high value.
A key point is if a lawsuit against the administration appears in a biden or obama courtroom, you know instantly that it is a good policy that needs to be upheld, strengthened, made into the law of the land lol
No, you’re not confused at all.
Hey Matt - have you considered any articles debunking the supposed hate that legacy media is ascribing to CK vs what he actually said in context. Stephen King at least realized he stepped in it with his comments, NYT too, but there have been many other outlets taking so much of what CK said out of context.
excellent point. Charlie was smeared and tagged but when you go to his actual words - nothingburgers. Christian, wanting gay/trans to be healthy and happy with their bodies and not want to chop them up. Hardly hate speech.
Like the one I saw that said he said all black women lack brain capacity or some such comment, when he simply said in relation to a specific topic that Michelle Obama, Oprah, and Woopie didn't or something like that. Calling out specific people is not racist. You noticing that they are all of a specific gender or ethnicity... might be.
He was specifically saying that BECAUSE they all stated they were beneficiaries of affirmative action, they had stolen a white person's spot. He wasn't calling out random black women.
This is literally true -- except "non-black" would be more correct than "white", but that's a quibble. That is, in fact, what affirmative action (in its modern form) exists to do. It sounds vulgar to put it like that, but one should talk about vulgar things using vulgar phrases.
The problem may be that "hate speech" is defined by what aligns with our views (or not). Someone may consider Charlie Kirk saying he opposes all abortion to be hate speech. Someone else may consider someone saying transgender girls should be able to compete in girls' sports to be hate speech.
Neither are hate speech. They're just speech that you or I or anyone may personally agree or disagree with.
It seems so simple and yet—— ?!?!
King was just protecting his wallet. If he had nothing to lose, he wouldn't have apologized. He would have kept his filthy mouth shut otherwise.
And why do we care about him anyway? When's the last time he wrote a book anyone read?
Right? I mean, that's how I judge good authors: prolificacy and recency of a bestseller.
Why is stephen king’s mouth “filthy”? I’m not following.
They did make note of this on America This Week, yesterday.
I would like to see deceptive clips debunked by playing enough of the video that provides the proper context. Next ATW?
Matt Orfeala has entered the comments…
No. Instead they decided to include the Proud Boys in this coverage. That should go a long way toward dispelling all those lies. FFS.
Yes. SO much out of context. I hardly listened to Charlie Kirk before this .. yet each quote I hear I look deeper and see how out of context it is. Even what he actually did say, like absolute views on abortion that I don't share, don't come from hate, they come from a different view.
“i will always stand against people who wish to establish their own personal values as a reason to kick others out of our movement.” - Charlie Kirk
I'm looking to see if "isithate.com" is taken.
It is. https://isithate.com/
I am pretty much an absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment and Kirk's speech and writing to my mind fall within it. It's not free speech unless that of people whose words I find appalling are permitted.
It should, but sadly I probably need to mention, go without saying that it follows I abhor his assassination.
But we don’t need to pretend Charlie Kirk was anything other than a "racist, homophobic, misogynistic... waste of human skin" (per Clever Pie) to affirm that principle.
There's a tragic irony that he was shot and that it was on the Utah Valley University campus given a) a student there was responsible for legislation permitting open carrying of guns on campuses in Utah; and b) that Kirk's position on gun control was, "it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
My take is anyone thinking he was a decent human being either didn't pay attention to what he said or, worse yet, agrees with him. A few samples which you could perhaps point to "context" that made these comments palatable:
- Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people — that’s a fact.
- I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it. “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.
- The philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.
- If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?
- There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.
- Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.
- Buy weapons, I keep on saying that. Buy weapons. Buy ammo. if you go into a public place, bring a gun with you and if you live in a state that doesn't allow you to do it, I got nothing for you, man. Thank goodness in Arizona we can carry and we carry.
- I’m not a fan of democracy.
You sir are wildly and likely willfully misinformed. If you spend a couple open minded minutes looking at what Charlie actually said, you should be embarrassed for this post. I'll address one of the items you list.
"I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it. “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Please see below for an analysis that has the statement you quoted in-context. Your characterization of the quote is completely divorced from the reality of what Charlie said. Shame on you. I'm really struggling how someone apparently so divorced from reality as you appear to be would subscribe to Matt Taibbi. I didn't think we had that sort here.
https://substack.com/@thejefferymead/note/c-156630756?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=88v17
Thanks for the link. You raise a legitimate issue of mainstream over-simplification but I take it then you're in favor of requiring voter ID, a specific objection he raised in it.
I'm not. It's clear the intent of this proposed requirement is to take citizens who're likely to vote Democratic off voter roles. There is no data I know of showing any but very isolated instances of voter fraud.
Got any others?
As for who cares below, no citations and merely insult, so no value.
Why don’t democrats have IDs?
First, thank you for watching the video. What you presented is not oversimplification. It's changing the meaning to be diametrically opposed to what was said.
Further, voter ID has nothing to do with whether Charlie's quote as taken horribly and maliciously out of context. He's "racist, homophobic, misogynistic... waste of human skin" is far different from, "but I disagree with him on Voter ID".
Don't take my word. Listen to a gay black man who was friends with Charlie. He goes through the laundry list of Charlie's supposed sins. What I saw was a compassionate man who would typically treat people with grace and kindness. The video intro is unnecessarily long. Bounce around the hyperlinks to whatever hot button topic you want to explore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N14ywRyTWVI&t=404s
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 - Intro
10:58 - On Second Amendment
12:48 - On Empathy
15:42 - On Gay People
17:58 - On Trans People
24:21 - On Racism
28:21 - On Affirmative Action
30:58 - On Critical Race Theory
34:56 - On Illegal Immigration
39:12 - On Abortion
44:22 - Charlie’s Why
49:48 - Liberal Threats
50:55 - Leaving The Left
52:29 - My Thoughts
To me, this video is gold. I would rather live in world where I disagree with half the population on policy solutions or philosophical points, instead of one where I believe half the population are mouth-breathing fill-in-the-blank-ists.
As much as I'd like to engage here, it's gotta be with print, softcopy of course. I don't have the time to watch videos and it's harder to analyze what you hear than what you read. Your first link was a bit over a minute and even with that I wish there'd been a transcript to quote from.
It may amuse you to learn I also post on the NYT and, while it's not true, one might well believe I go out of my way to antagonize its readers too.
I call BS. If you were so keen on getting to the source, every one of your characterizations of Charlie would not have been so displaced from reality. You took superficial intentionally divisive propaganda at face value and spread it with self-righteous confidence. Then, when presented with Charlie's own words, you cannot spend minutes (minutes!) to disabuse yourself of your vitriol. I find your feigned intellectualism self-aggrandizing and pathetic.
thanks for the long comment stating you believe fake news. AKA liars who distort what good people actually said. You are too lazy to look up the actual comments yourself. or you lack the brainpower to think outside the propaganda hole you enjoy swimming in.
Those sound like pretty radical but also interesting points of view. It’s a loss that no smart leftist took him up on his offer to discuss it in his Prove Me Wrong tent. Then we’d have seen what these crowd-pleasing statements were really made of. Why didn’t anyone step up, do you think? If Mencken could argue theology with the boys during the Scopes Trial, surely there was someone who had the chops to call Charlie down. Or was there?
I detest the notion of “hate” speech and crime. Just enforce the laws on the books without fear or favor. Equal Justice under the law.
To me it is not about what you supposedly feel. It is about whether you actively commit a crime or not.
I have always questioned the too-heavy emphasis on knowing the supposed motive for any crime The issue is that they did it . Or someone did it. Whatever they were feeling at the time.
Motive is really about building a plausible case, not justifying anything. Some cases can be a bit ambiguous; this can help narrow things down.
Bondi overspoke, obviously. There is a line and it has to do with promoting and/or executing violence. That has been, and likely should be, the bright line for moving speech from "I hate it" to "you cannot do that". Calling for the masses to kill someone is different from "some days I wish he/she were dead". (Otherwise almost all couples would be in jail.)
Kirk had the right idea -- more speech (without threats of violence) is the answer. Having said all that, private actors have the ability to draw tighter circles of acceptable around the speech of their representatives. I would not want my children taught by a teacher who thinks Kirk and all his supporters should be dead -- my child may be one of them.
The line isn't even at promoting violence. Promoting violence is fine, legally, as long as it isn't connected to imminent lawless action. You can't yell "Kill that guy" while pointing at him at the head of a mob, but you can post "We should kill that guy" on social media.
Of course, employers may take a dim view of their employees promoting violence, as well they should.
What you said.
The arbiter of what constitutes hate speech will not always be someone with whom we align.
The question should be; who's more radical right now? It changes and shifts. Right now the left is more deranged, violent and fascist. I spent two years on Tik Tok live trying to have conversations with lefties. They are incapable of debating. Every attempt at debate turns into personal insults and threats. They don't know what's going on. I recently debated with a friend who said "DEI was a right" and Trump "took her rights away." DEI is not a right. The far left doesn't know history, they have no clue as to what's going on, and they are brainwashed by the media. I was too. I was not a bad a person or evil. I was convinced Trump was a Russian agent and I feared for my country. They are being mislead. The media needs to be held accountable.
The media needs to be held accountable for acting as a tool here, but it is ultimately down to the individual to awaken. It is their personal responsibility.
This might be referred to as self-differentiation, or individuation. Individual evolution.
I am happy to debate you. Your premise, however, that one can soundly, reasonably debate which 1/2 of American society is “more deranged, violent, and fascist” is inherently flawed and suggests your debate skills may not be what you think they are.
And what do you think, I think my skills are? I attempted debate for 2 years with lefties, and they only had insults. They would shut the convo down because they couldn’t win the debate nor were they informed accurately. All they knew were the talking points the media fed them. Debate for me isn’t about winning, it’s about learning. I learned nothing from them other than, that they can’t debate.
Fuck hate speech. It was the biggest Pandora's Box mistake that unleashed a mass of evil to think that we can identify and prosecute people for an emotion.
If I speak, there is no way for you to definitively know if my words are evidence of hate. That is unless I say that I hate. But even then, what is in my heart at the time the words are delivered does not define the basis of any person. My kids have said "I hate you" when I have grounded them for misbehavior. Do you think that is real, or just a fit of passion?
Now if my kid said, "I hate you" and then shot me to kill me, it is the attempted killing that should get the legal attention and not the words said.
All that should matter is actions. Words are not actions. Words are not violence. However, words design to influence and encourage people to do violence, and other illegal actions should be considered actions themselves. Also, speech that attempts to cause or even support any action that is an infringement on our God-given rights as enshrined in the Constitution should be considered punishable actions.
There is a line. It is a bright line for me.
Yes and it has historically been thought to be a very bright line in the Constitution.
It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us --
that from these honored dead we take increased devotion
to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion --
that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain --
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.
.
My favorite speech…
I am an unabashed conservative, aligned with the right on most (but not all) issues. That said, the entire concept of “hate speech” escapes me. The same for “hate crime”. Speech is speech, and other than what is already covered by law (libel or slander for instance), why make a distinction? Based on what? The same with “hate crime”. Crime is crime. How do we attach hate to it objectively? Bindi was wrong, and I’m glad she backtracked.
Indeed. We criminalize and punish various acts according to the fact that we have laws against them. Usually for good reason.
It is not about what you are feeling at the time you might commit such an act. I always scratch my head at that rather loony notion.
The concept of "hate speech" was introduced in recent decades as a leftwing political tactic. A manipulation.
We lived without this concept prior to that. Most people under 40 probably do not remember such times. A relatively unified and balanced society does not need to worry unduly about it. The problems arise with the general social breakdown.
It's the chicken-and-the-egg situation....which came first, the social breakdown and the following "hate speech" or the "hate speech" and the following social breakdown?
My money is on the social breakdown having been planned and instigated first.
It’s the proverbial camel getting its nose under the edge of the tent. Once people accepted that years ago, look at all the subsequent bad ideas that have followed.
It amazes me that so many people go around seriously talking about "hate speech" as if it it a bona fide legal concept. As opposed to a GOTCHA! leftwing manipulation.
The lefties well and truly WANT you to believe in it...so they can use it in future against the gullibles.
It’s really unfortunate. The same people will enumerate a list of “rights” that are not rights.
I suspect the whole "human rights" movement of the 70s and beyond was actually a far-leftwing manipulation too. Part of the overall Neo-Marxist narrative to build a worldview which pushed the West in a direction beneficial for them. Not us.
Another mind-twisting tool. This, from the folks who actually wish to take away even basic rights. Working towards mass serfdom.
The Long March of the Institutions.
Ministry of Love.
😁
🛎️🔨
Kirk quite literally died in defense of free speech.
All I can say is you can’t hate CNN enough. Their headline just now that read Charlie Kirk’s assassin’s Dad was a MAGA supporter. Enough!
I don’t know. I think CNN is reasonably defending against the onslaught of violent rhetoric from elected Republican officials- not random yahoos on the internet - who are targeting “The Left” generally and encouraging retaliation for this crime.
IMAGINE if the rolls were reversed. A Democrat is president with majorities in the House and the Senate. Now imagine a revered figure on the left is murdered and POTUS and sitting congressman (in addition to full press media) vociferously call for retaliation even violence against the Right for this murder. Now imagine low and behold it comes out that the shooter of the Left Icon was born and raised in a very liberal household who had proudly voted for Biden.
YOU DON’T THINK FOX NEWS IS GOING TO POINT THAT OUT?!?!
YOU DON’T THINK IT’S REASONABLE TO DO SO?!?
Until further notice, we should strike the word "hate" from the English language. It no longer has any useful meaning, except as a political tool, a bludgeon to silence opposition. And to arouse emotions over logic and intentionally inculcate real, tangible hate - the real thing. Just as anti-racism = more racism, anti-hate = more hate. Young minds are the most vulnerable.
Once they have us thinking that feeling certain emotions is a sin, they will move on to indoctrinating everyone that thought-crime is next. Punishable by them, of course.
And their power grows.
There are indeed reprehensible attitudes, according to what most of us consider morality. But we cannot criminalize this via the law unless it is really a crime.
We can let people know in other ways they are being reprehensible however. That it is outside our moral boundaries.
There is no legal "hate speech" concept.
However, there are moral codes that most of us -- including many employers -- expect people to live up to in the public eye.
It was several thousand years of Judeo-Christianity that built the Superego of Western Civilization. Superego as in Freud's concept of the human psyche: Id/Ego/Superego. The Superego being man's moral conscience. We are born with the instinctual Id, but we need to develop the Superego.
There are many parts of the world that have no general moral conscience such as this. Just tribal affiliations. Thank your lucky stars that the West developed it. It has been our saving grace.
Let’s hope it prevails
Hear, hear!
But I understand what you mean about things being a bit dicey just now. Judeo-Christianity is gasping for breath, at least in the public realm.
Watching people that act like this is almost as disturbing as murder itself
I'm kind of enjoying watching the mods of /r/politics and /r/news remove every single news item about the killer's text messages for being "off topic".
RED ALERT! GROYPER NARRATIVE IN DANGER! SCRAMBLE ALL MODS!