Charlie Kirk

[Lower]

I wouldn’t say demean is the correct word, but he was anti equality


His views on abortion which is all about control of women not about pro life.

And then there’s him saying this: “Conservative influencer Charlie Kirk believed that young women, specifically ones who supported Kamala Harris, want careers – not kids”

Charlie Kirk wanted to take women back to the 1950s: no abortion option, no career, just stay at home with kids.

Again, I don’t accept that his views on abortion, which I don’t agree with, were anti equality. He was wrestling with the dilemma of when a fertilised embryo becomes a life, and it’s a common dilemma n America that we don’t understand as it’s been a largely settled argument here since the 60s. Once you consider a fertilised embryo to be a life, it’s a whole different argument than the equality one.

However, in the videos I’ve watched of him, as long as the people he debated with didn’t become abusive or ignore facts, I’ve seen him to actively encourage dialogue and discussion about different perspectives in a respectful way.

Free speech means being willing to accept other views even if you comprehensively disagree with them and not just attempting to shut them down, and I think he did that.

 

[MNW67]

It's not. Their ability to travel to the US is being suppressed. That has nothing to do with free speech.

Of course it is. You need to separate out the offence from the punishment. Their ability to say what they want is being suppressed by the USA. They are being directly punished for what they have said. The punishment the USA are using to suppress that person's freedom to say what they want is immigration policy.

 

[denso13]

Their ability to travel to the US is being suppressed.

Because they said the wrong thing surely. If you say what the US government allow you to say you can travel, if you don't then you can't.

 

[Si_]

Of course it is. You need to separate out the offence from the punishment. Their ability to say what they want is being suppressed by the USA. They are being directly punished for what they have said. The punishment the USA are using to suppress that person's freedom to say what they want is immigration policy.

Again, that has nothing to do with free speech. I don't know how to phrase it more clearly. The right to free speech is the right to express opinions without sanctions from your OWN GOVERNMENT. My right to free speech in calling Kim Jong Un a fascist potato is not affected one iota by the fact I'd get sent to the gulags if I ever visited North Korea.

 

[denso13]

The right to free speech is the right to express opinions without sanctions from your OWN GOVERNMENT.

I don't think that's correct. A citizen is of course subject to the laws of the country they live in, but a foreign government trying to punish them for what they say is trying to restrict their free speech.

 

[MNW67]

Again, that has nothing to do with free speech. I don't know how to phrase it more clearly. The right to free speech is the right to express opinions without sanctions from your OWN GOVERNMENT. My right to free speech in calling Kim Jong Un a fascist potato is not affected one iota by the fact I'd get sent to the gulags if I ever visited North Korea.

Well, you seem to have come up with your own rather bizarre definition of free speech. Do you have a source? I am using the normal meaning of words. If you receive punishment for speaking freely, then your ability to speak freely is being suppressed. It seems logical and straight forward to me.

 

[MNW67]

I don't think that's correct. A citizen is of course subject to the laws of the country they live in, but a foreign government trying to punish them for what they say is trying to restrict their free speech.

It sounds so obvious when you put it like that!

 

[MNW67]

AI Overview



No, the right to free speech protects against interference by
any public authority, not just a foreign government, and includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas "regardless of frontiers". This fundamental human right is protected by international declarations and national laws, although it can be subject to lawful restrictions for specific purposes.

 

[Si_]

Well, you seem to have come up with your own rather bizarre definition of free speech. Do you have a source? I am using the normal meaning of words. If you receive punishment for speaking freely, then your ability to speak freely is being suppressed. It seems logical and straight forward to me.

It's not a bizarre definition, it's the only definition in the UK. It's defined in the Human Rights Act 1998. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

'by public authority' means by your government.
'regardless of frontiers' means your government cannot stop you sharing your opinions beyond the country's borders.

The only possible way such a thing could be termed a violation of free speech rights is if the UK government got directly involved in the banning, for example by forwarding information about people's media posts to US authorities.

That's the legal framework. If you want to use the term to describe anything that comes to mind then that's up to, I'm just informing you what it means.

 

[MNW67]

It's not a bizarre definition, it's the only definition in the UK. It's defined in the Human Rights Act 1998. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

'by public authority' means by your government.
'regardless of frontiers' means your government cannot stop you sharing your opinions beyond the country's borders.

The only possible way such a thing could be termed a violation of free speech rights is if the UK government got directly involved in the banning, for example by forwarding information about people's media posts to US authorities.

That's the legal framework. If you want to use the term to describe anything that comes to mind then that's up to, I'm just informing you what it means.

To me, freedom of speech is a concept. So, I am going to continue using my own common sense definition.

I can see that there is no way we are going to agree on this. You seem to be new to GD and I don't want to fall out. Anyway, I only popped on to make a couple of posts.

Happy posting!

 

[denso13]

It's not a bizarre definition, it's the only definition in the UK. It's defined in the Human Rights Act 1998. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

'by public authority' means by your government.
'regardless of frontiers' means your government cannot stop you sharing your opinions beyond the country's borders.

The only possible way such a thing could be termed a violation of free speech rights is if the UK government got directly involved in the banning, for example by forwarding information about people's media posts to US authorities.

Yes, UK citizens are subject to UK laws.

If the US government want to punish me for what I say then they are obviously trying to suppress things they don't like, affecting my right to free speech. It cannot be anything else.

 

[Si_]

To me, freedom of speech is a concept. So, I am going to continue using my own common sense definition.

I can see that there is no way we are going to agree on this. You seem to be new to GD and I don't want to fall out. Anyway, I only popped on to make a couple of posts.

Happy posting!

In the colloquial sense, you're of course correct. If you want to travel to the US then the US are indirectly imposing restrictions on your speech by their new rule. Then again, they've always done that, it just seems like this lot are more touchy about it than most.

 

[Si_]

Yes, UK citizens are subject to UK laws.

If the US government want to punish me for what I say then they are obviously trying to suppress things they don't like, affecting my right to free speech. It cannot be anything else.

They're not trying to suppress anything. They're saying they don't want you in their country, as it their right. And it's a right that, in law, does not infringe on any of your rights as a UK citizen, nor could it possibly. So rest assured you can say what you like about Trump or Charlie Kirk or John Wayne or Hulk Hogan or whoever you see fit, without any fear of sanction by the US.

 

[denso13]

They're saying they don't want you in their country, as it their right.

Well yes, if you say the wrong thing, no other reason.

 

[denso13]

So rest assured you can say what you like about Trump or Charlie Kirk or John Wayne or Hulk Hogan or whoever you see fit, without any fear of sanction by the US.

There is a sanction, you are barred from the US.