“Libertarian” Rand Paul Calls for National Crackdown Over Charlie Kirk

“The is no First Amendment right to advocate for violence.”

Correct.

Try telling someone, with witnesses, that you’re going to kill them.

Terroristic threats aren’t included with “the right to free speech.”

Is Chuck Schumer on reddit? Did he say the same thing there that he did on the Cwpitol steps with flecks out spitlle fyling errywhere!

In fact, they consider it hate speech enough to kill Charlie Kirk over it. Yes, we need to tread prudently...

Or something like that. Sorry didn’t have my other eyes for a sec.

I believe X is a Nazi and therefore should be killed is basically the foundation of current Russian foreign policy.

The morality of it depends very much on the accuracy of the designation. From 1939 to 1945 the Allies operated on the same basis and even after 1945 continued to do so until they believed the last Nazis had been eliminated.

Because communists have more friends in high places, they have escaped such a harsh fate, but there have been times where powerful people in a few countries have said, if you’re a communist, you must be killed. Again, the morality of it depends on whether the target really is a communist.

Who is really a Nazi or a communist in modern America? There are very few real Nazis, and quite a few real communists.

In a peacetime situation, I believe we should prosecute crimes, not sets of opinions. If there were a civil war ongoing and the basis of it was communist revolution, that would be a different thing. We are not quite at that boundary yet. However, we need to understand that the m.o. of communists has always been to define their opponents as Nazis or fascists so as to normalize the concept of violence against them. They prefer to use intimidation, rather than overt revolution; if they can get enough moderates to refuse to support the more resolute opponents, then the moderates will likely also cave in on revolutionary demands, and remove the need for revolution to achieve them.

The far left in American politics and in other formerly free societies have succeeded in winning revolutionary changes without waging a revolution on that basis. They have essentially used freedom of speech (that they have under laws and constitutions) to remove our freedom of speech in many contexts. Their speech is basically this — do as we say or we will ruin your life. They don’t threaten to end lives, just to ruin them (blacklisting, social ostracism). This means very little to certain portions of society not subject to higher education certification or peer review.

It is easier for a communist to silence a university graduate than a high school graduate. This has meant that the discourse has become somewhat asymmetric, communists speak in paradigms obscure to the average person, and the average person tends to relate in terms of everyday life and not abstract principles. Thus the two realities coexist with somewhat minimalized conflict. A fundamentally conservative middle class coexists with an essentially socialist-communist elite. It is only when one side or the other insists that their standards must apply everywhere, that conflict breaks out.

The “deal” so far has been this — the elites say to the middle class, we will leave you alone but we will take your kids and indoctrinate them to be like us. You have no kids any more, we own them all. A lot of people have decided it’s too much hassle to oppose this, and have gone silent. The kids (in some, perhaps many, cases) are turned against their middle class parents and anything they support.

It was of this generation apparently that Jesus prophesied, family members would turn on each other. As easily as children have been separated from adults, women have been turned against men, gays against straights, ethnic communities against the “legacy” whites. It’s a wonder there is anything left of social cohesion at all and I don’t see how our societies can hold together much longer before there are violent reactions to this stress.

It’s one thing to tolerate diversity, but when good and evil are equated, in fact when good is defined as evil by those powerful enough to have their opinions matter, then social revolution is inevitable. A few dozen loudmouths will lose jobs because of their reactions to the Charlie Kirk assassination, but the left will take notes and return the favor tenfold wherever they get a chance in the future. And they will continue to radicalize students to do the killing they would like to do, but either don’t know how to do, or are too squeamish to undertake. And when the students do their bidding, they will praise them. This is what parents do. Leftists are the parents of all children now. It takes a village. Etc etc.

Where does that leave free speech? In the gutter. There is no point in free speech if good ideas are ignored and bad ideas are made government policy. Free speech is only working as intended if the result of it is better government policy. We have seen since about 1965 that free speech almost always results in worse government policy. That is partly because it’s not really free speech but controlling speech.

The MAGA movement is attempting to return to an earlier time when vigorous exchanges of opinion led to better government policy. The globalists cannot tolerate this. If the middle class gets to run the society, then there is no role for them, nobody needs idiots when you have genius available. The success of a free society has always been in the inherent genius of the free individual.

The bottom line is this — it is always better to have too much free speech than too little. Bad ideas will be in the mix but by the very nature of free speech, bad ideas will lose in the marketplace of ideas. If the control is too strict and good ideas cannot be expressed (as in the UK nowadays) then the entire society is weakened because it’s easier for those with bad intentions to prevail, unchallenged, as muppets always like to do. Yes I said muppets. Because here I am free to say muppet.

Globalists are muppets, and puppets too. They hate to be reminded of it and figure the best defense is to turn everyone into a muppet. A muppet calling another muppet a muppet is not an insult, just a way of saying hello.

These groups need to be declared terrorist organizations, and rounded up and identified. They should never be able to possess a fire arm.

Shouting FIRE in a movie theater isn’t a 1st Amendment or speech issue.

It’s a property rights issue.

If the theater owner lets people yell FIRE that’s their business. It’s their property.

“But for about a decade, from the left, this is the mantra:

Our violence is speech.

Your speech is violence.”

Well said.

At all.

That’s right.

I agree big time.

The original understanding of the first amendment freedom of speech was concerning mainly POLITICAL speech, not yelling “fire” in a movie theater.

Get real.

He didn’t even mention how he was nearly assassinated by a Bernie Sanders nut job.

“I couldn’t find where Rand Paul said the government should do it.”

I can’t. He does talk about contracts and moral clauses. Those he means are for private entities. Except for the military, no mention of government action.