What part of the quote below suggests encouragement of violence? Seems like one person’s pov about what Kirk espoused.
> In one screenshot shared by the agency, a person identified as an Argentine national said Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.”
American Citizens have the right to offensive free speech in America, a foreigner wishing to obtain a VISA does not and would be an idiot to think he should be allowed to visit if he was posting things like "f... ck America"
Ackshually there is part of the first amendment that applies to certain people, specifically the right for "the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The courts have prior held that non-immigrant visas and illegal immigrants usually aren't "the people" referenced by the constitution, which is why they have no right to bear arms which also uses "the people" in reference to the people with that right. If they don't have the right to bear arms, it follows they are not "the people" and thus have no implicit protection to parts of the first amendment that explicitly assign protection to "the people."
It may be up for interpretation whether the immigrants in question were petitioning the government for grievances, if so that may have not been protected if they are not people.
Ahhh.. 1A, but only for specific groups, in specific contexts, as long as you're ok with it. Yes, that's exactly what they meant when they wrote it. le sigh.
I hope your enjoying the current state of the country. It's people just like you that brought it about, so carry on with the winning!
It's a gross verbal onanism over someone's death, mixed with the typical baseless dehumanization. If you want this sort of person in your country, my condolences.
please point out any and all verbs or other terms that call for any kind of action. so you found 'remove', right? it's a call for ceasing friendship. is that considered violence?
Words do have meanings. That comment may be cruel, but nothing in it is dehumanizing -- unlike, for example, this quote:
"Mere weeks before his death, Kirk reveled in Trump's deployment of federal troops to DC. 'Shock and awe. Force,' he wrote. 'We're taking our country back from these cockroaches.'"
It’s not just whataboutism when the comparison points to a broader systemic process of eroding rights and worsening conditions. It is also an observation of this next stage in that process and how it departs from the last.
Ultimately, I think it’s self-serving/pointless Daily Show “gotcha” finger-waving trying to face down a steamroller of hate, but it’s more than whataboutism.
The hypocrisy is that, when somebody was banned from a mere social media website for praising or implicitly encouraging violence, the argument was always skewed toward the legal (e.g. "doesn't meet the bar for imminent action"). Yet when confronted with the fact that it was a private platform, the arguments skewed away from the legal ("free speech absolutism"). And of course now that it's physical people being banned from a physical country, somehow the arguments are now reversed on principles, weaker, less passionate - despite the situation being more concrete/dramatic, rather than just social media moderation.
It's never been about free speech - not morally nor legally - and the fact that they pretended it was is insulting to American principles.
