West

Well "the state" offers ABC a boat load of tax deductions and incentives provided they act in the public interest. Spreading baseless conspiracy theories about "the right" shooting Kirk in the neck is not in the public interest.

It is very conservative. Thou shall not murder is a socially conservative principal but apparently is now rejected by many mainstream democrats The irony.. remember its YOU that is against free speech for believing downplaying leftist terror cells who assassinated a prominent political figure is disgusting.

Nonsense. The apparent left wing terror cell ended the debate by shooting the guy in the neck

Charlie Kirk stood against political violence. This isnt a "free speech" issue; he was f'ing assassinated by an apparent terror cell while people like Kimmel made fools of themselves

This "private company" is regulated under FCC. The FCC would ultimately determine whether or not celebrating a political assassination falls under protecting the public interest. If he doesnt like having to work for a regulated company he could go do stand up in a dive bar somewhere

Uh yeah im pretty sure CNN was claiming their new boogeyman as "the Groypers" because Kirk wasn't "MAGA enough". Some even ridiculously claimed it was someone shooting off a gun in celebration.

You beat me to it. The wacky media have also claimed that the Kirk assassin was "MAGA" as well.

Lucky for Kimmel he's not right wing. They tend to get shot in the neck over speech the other side doesnt like. See Cory Comparatore and Charlie Kirk

Amazing.. these people are saying that Trump is taking away "free speech" while not acknowledging that sticking a bullet in someones neck is the ultimate fascist move to silence free speech. Sickos

Unacceptable views. Sad

You blame "MAGA" while simultaneously giving supposed moderates a pass for doing pre dawn SWAT raids against political opponents. Edit for Mike

Certainly never to the level of raiding the opposition law offices though. That is what youd expect to see in the USSR.

A good chunk of the population in the US sees the same way. They see pro lifers getting multi year sentences and politicians legal representation having their law offices raided. I dont think its a "conspiracy theory" or unreasonable to be concerned.

There won't be civility when; 1. Democrats weaponize the legal system to target political opponents. This includes targeting faith groups, home school groups or others who they have ideological disagreements with. 2. When Democrats in the media lie to demonize their opposition by calling them nazis 3. When Democrats hold bogus impeachment proceedings trying to eradicate Trump from political life thru fraudulent means 4. When Democrats do not respect basic civil liberties like freedom of expression. When they take ACTION such as an assassination to silence the other guys I dont see how there can be civility 5. When they fund or at the very least support rioters and plan to bail them out 6. When they target other peoples kids through weaponizing their ideology. Men like Charlie Kirk vigorously defended their ideas. The difference is the Democrats use shady action to silence dissent such as burying people in fake allegations. There's really no way to "unify" with such radicalism I was actually being sarcastic. Others in the conversation were able to recognize that

What i copied and pasted was the AI result i when I typed in the key words into a search engine. I am a lover Mike and oppose violence. I do support holding judges to account for turning their bench into an arm of the Democrat party tho to strike fear into political opposition. If you can honestly sit there and think that trying to target pepples businesses family friends with bogus legal challenges for simply having different political ideas i would suggest you are not about civility.

You haven't followed the discussion have you?

No honest person with access to Google would make such a stupid comment

But it uses "eradicate" duh

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/defending-the-jury/eradicating-the-bench-trial/E584B1D51691AA3EB84692B101951602 Looks like Cambridge is doing hate speech against trial judges

I've heard it many times in common usage. Even common enough that I copied and pasted the response from Google But nice try. You are right it is harder than opposed because there should be no space to abuse the bench to target political adversaries.

No the use of the word eradicate is used in its proper context to signal the removal of a judge.

Actually the definition is to "rid of" and I stand by my assertion that folks who abuse the bench for political purposes should be removed. In a judicial context: To "eradicate from the bench" a judge (specifically a federal judge) implies removing them from their judicial role. This process is called impeachment, and it involves the House of Representatives bringing articles of impeachment and the Senate holding a trial and voting on conviction.

What about if hypothetically they call someone a "fascist" then fund a group called "Antifa" who go around and physically assault people who you call fascists?

Speech in and of itself should not be criminalized BUT if you say violent things then go out and commit something that is a crime, such as murdering someone, this could prove your INTENT.

Shes clarified