It is circulating online that the shooter was transgender, if that turns out to be true, I fear for what this crime will be used to justify.
From the New York Times:
Investigators have identified the attacker as Robin Westman, 23, who is believed to be a former student at the school, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. The suspect’s mother is a retired employee of the school, the official said.
and
According to court records, Robin Westman’s mother, Mary Grace Westman, submitted a petition to change her child’s name in November 2019. A judge granted the petition in January 2020 and wrote in an order making the name change official, “Minor child identifies as a female and wants her name to reflect that identification.” At the time, Robin Westman was 17.
Charlie Kirk has been shot and killed in Utah. (For those who might not be aware, he was the founder/leader of Turning Point USA, a nonprofit that advocates for conservative views on college campuses, and he was an unofficial advisor to the Trump administration.) He was in the middle of a public event, answering questions about how many trans people have committed mass shootings when he was shot in the neck.
A couple of years ago, he said:
I think it's worth it. I think 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.
-- Source: Snopes
The shooter hit the carotid artery from 100-200 metres away - must be a professional hit. Clearly gun violence in red states is out of control and they should deploy the National Guard in Utah.
A nasty piece of work who should have been locked up for inciting hatred by public statement of his views. But, the last thing we need in any of our nations is for any of these vile, dangerous scum to become martyrs (especially, as in this case, being shot but even prosecution in courts and fines/imprisonment has that unfortunate effect).
I was pretty shocked by how he was represented in the news last night - you'd never know he's said a controversial thing let alone some of the extremist hate and prejudice he's come out with. I knew because I had a social media timeline full of Americans talking about it but if you weren't following American politics you'd have no idea from that coverage what sort of person he was.
A nasty piece of work who should have been locked up for inciting hatred by public statement of his views.
I couldn't disagree more. I don't want to be locked up for my views, including expressing rage at and hatred for the current regime. Just hating people should not be a crime.
I love the first amendment, and I think the second ought to be repealed. Or at minimum properly interpreted, not misreading or ignoring the militia clause.
From an American point of view Canadian and British takes on this are well into Orwellian thought crime territory.
Only the point of view of Americans who're pig ignorant of Canadian and British takes.
Fuck you too!
Yeah well, you piss and moan constantly about people outside the US having opinions about it so why not lead by example and STFU about things in other countries you clearly don't understand?
A nasty piece of work who should have been locked up for inciting hatred by public statement of his views.
I couldn't disagree more. I don't want to be locked up for my views, including expressing rage at and hatred for the current regime. Just hating people should not be a crime.
Which is why I didn't say anything about his (or your) right to hold whatever views he liked, no matter how much I disagree with them. The issues are with the public statements he has made, which we must assume are an expression of what he actually believes. Statements that incite people to hate others, to the point of denial of their rights (eg: his views on returning to racial segregation) or calling for some people to be killed (eg: he has said that homosexuals should be killed), are what should have had him locked up. It doesn't matter who someone calls others to kill, that's not something anyone should be allowed to say.
From an American point of view Canadian and British takes on this are well into Orwellian thought crime territory.
Depends on the Canadian/Brit - I have to say that I don't have a problem with the First Amendment and would certainly appreciate similar protections in the UK. I'd much rather have that than the way wealthy people can bully people via the courts here for hurting their feelings. I don't think it's incompatible with protections for marginalised people, lots of states have comprehensive protections.
I don't have a problem with gun ownership per se either, especially in a country like the US that has Actual Wilderness with Actual Dangerous Animals. I don't think regular people should have assault weapons etc, but hunting for food for eg is no problem imo. There are lots of rural liberal hunters in the US.
Right-Wing Activists Urge Followers to Expose Those Celebrating Kirk Killing
The widespread and fast-moving campaign has already resulted in lost jobs, suspensions and internal investigations, heightening tensions online between supporters and detractors of Charlie Kirk.
Right-Wing Activists Urge Followers to Expose Those Celebrating Kirk Killing
The widespread and fast-moving campaign has already resulted in lost jobs, suspensions and internal investigations, heightening tensions online between supporters and detractors of Charlie Kirk.
2 questions:
Shouldn't there have been security on the roofs of buildings surrounding that political gathering?
Will the suspect's father get the $100,000 reward?
It seems to be that generally very vocal advocates of free speech want the right to say whatever they want (usually having no difficulty actually saying that, because they interpret peaceful counter-protests, satire etc as trying to silence them) but without much concern about allowing others say what they want. It's the perennial problem with the whole concept of free speech - what happens when one group exercising their right to free speech limits the ability of another (almost always less privileged) group to exercise their rights? If one vocal group calls for members of another group to be killed, it's very likely that members of the second group are not going to be as vocal as they otherwise might in their calls for everyone to have the right to life, liberty and happiness.
It's something that isn't restricted to the right to free speech, conflicting rights is near universal. The relevant example for this thread is that a right to own and carry guns conflicts with the rights of others to live in safety; some may believe that almost 50,000 deaths per year is an acceptable cost associated with near unrestricted gun ownership, but parents of a child gunned down at school are very likely to disagree that the life of their child is less important than maintaining a gun-fetish culture. And, again, some of the advocates for the right to own guns would appear to actually be only interested in "my right to own guns" or "the right of people like me to own guns" - would they be as enthusiastic about members of black and hispanic communities owning guns to defend their communities against racist attacks?
And, again, some of the advocates for the right to own guns would appear to actually be only interested in "my right to own guns" or "the right of people like me to own guns" - would they be as enthusiastic about members of black and hispanic communities owning guns to defend their communities against racist attacks?
It's the perennial problem with the whole concept of free speech - what happens when one group exercising their right to free speech limits the ability of another (almost always less privileged) group to exercise their rights?
That this can be a problem is undeniable, but I’m unconvinced that the answer is for those in authority to decide which group should be able to say what they want and which should be silenced.
For what it’s worth, I think everyone should be free to express (and, of course, be challenged on) their views and opinions, but not to call for violence against others. I certainly don’t agree with the current idea that simply being exposed to an idea one finds offensive is an act of violence from which one should be protected.
I certainly don’t agree with the current idea that simply being exposed to an idea one finds offensive is an act of violence from which one should be protected.
There's an awful lot of abstraction in this sentence which makes it hard to discern what you're actually objecting to. Who is espousing this "current idea"? What are they actually advocating? What sort of thing is meant by "an idea one finds offensive"? Who would be doing the protecting?
Are you familiar with the concept of “safe spaces”? That whole concept - especially as applied on many university campuses - is predicated on the notion that the expression of certain ideas or opinions is a danger from which people must be protected.
Are you familiar with the concept of “safe spaces”? That whole concept - especially as applied on many university campuses - is predicated on the notion that the expression of certain ideas or opinions is a danger from which people must be protected.
Right, but everyone has that concept - that the right to express an opinion doesn't include the right to force people to listen or to have a particular platform to express it. It's interesting that you pick an example where this is used to protect vulnerable groups from being abused and threatened by fascists rather than, say, where university management uses it to silence protests against them sucking up to arms dealers. For many students campus is their home and their right to peaceful enjoyment of it trumps the right of the fash (or religious fundamentalists for that matter) to call for gay people to be executed or whatever is the enormity du jour.
Right-Wing Activists Urge Followers to Expose Those Celebrating Kirk Killing
The widespread and fast-moving campaign has already resulted in lost jobs, suspensions and internal investigations, heightening tensions online between supporters and detractors of Charlie Kirk.
That's not very "free speech"-y.
The standard response is that the right to free speech does not include immunity to the natural consequences of making that speech.
If Mr. Bun the Baker decides to spend his weekends standing in a public park advocating for something I find objectionable, he has that right, but I also have the right to decide that, in consequence, I won't be patronizing his bakery, and I'll be advising all my friends to boycott him as well.
We have any number of examples of people being filmed being abusively racist in public, and being fired by their employers in consequence. I don't think I see being fired for publicly celebrating the death of another human as especially different from that. Although it does seem to depend on the person who dies - when Osama Bin Laden was killed, nobody looked askance at people celebrating his death. When notorious murderers are executed, nobody gets fired for expressing satisfaction.
And here's Colorado State Rep Matt Soper, on hearing about the death of President Carter:
“Opened a bottle of Champaigne tonight! The world is rid of a despot! Thank God he finally called Carter home! The worst president in the history of the U.S.! We are still recovering! He destroyed the U.S. in such a way that even the 4th generation is still suffering!”
If it's bad for an ordinary person to celebrate the death of a political opponent, it must be worse for an elected politician to do so, and yet I will note that Mr. Soper is still in office. So if you think that Trump and the Republicans are a pile of stinking hypocrites, you'd probably be right.
We have any number of examples of people being filmed being abusively racist in public, and being fired by their employers in consequence. I don't think I see being fired for publicly celebrating the death of another human as especially different from that. Although it does seem to depend on the person who dies - when Osama Bin Laden was killed, nobody looked askance at people celebrating his death. When notorious murderers are executed, nobody gets fired for expressing satisfaction.
It appalls me that employers are able to fire people for things they say and do on their own time when those things aren't specifically spelled out as forbidden in employment contracts or employee handbooks.
For what it's worth here is the wikipaedia entry on safe spaces. At my place of employment, I am both non-unionized management staff and a unionized instructor. The latter provides all sorts of protection for speech that I doubt I have under the former.
For what it's worth here is the wikipaedia entry on safe spaces. At my place of employment, I am both non-unionized management staff and a unionized instructor. The latter provides all sorts of protection for speech that I doubt I have under the former.
Comments
A couple of years ago, he said:
As Alan said, a nasty piece of work.
I couldn't disagree more. I don't want to be locked up for my views, including expressing rage at and hatred for the current regime. Just hating people should not be a crime.
Only the point of view of Americans who're pig ignorant of Canadian and British takes.
Fuck you too!
Yeah well, you piss and moan constantly about people outside the US having opinions about it so why not lead by example and STFU about things in other countries you clearly don't understand?
Depends on the Canadian/Brit - I have to say that I don't have a problem with the First Amendment and would certainly appreciate similar protections in the UK. I'd much rather have that than the way wealthy people can bully people via the courts here for hurting their feelings. I don't think it's incompatible with protections for marginalised people, lots of states have comprehensive protections.
I don't have a problem with gun ownership per se either, especially in a country like the US that has Actual Wilderness with Actual Dangerous Animals. I don't think regular people should have assault weapons etc, but hunting for food for eg is no problem imo. There are lots of rural liberal hunters in the US.
Right-Wing Activists Urge Followers to Expose Those Celebrating Kirk Killing
The widespread and fast-moving campaign has already resulted in lost jobs, suspensions and internal investigations, heightening tensions online between supporters and detractors of Charlie Kirk.
That's not very "free speech"-y.
Shouldn't there have been security on the roofs of buildings surrounding that political gathering?
Will the suspect's father get the $100,000 reward?
It's something that isn't restricted to the right to free speech, conflicting rights is near universal. The relevant example for this thread is that a right to own and carry guns conflicts with the rights of others to live in safety; some may believe that almost 50,000 deaths per year is an acceptable cost associated with near unrestricted gun ownership, but parents of a child gunned down at school are very likely to disagree that the life of their child is less important than maintaining a gun-fetish culture. And, again, some of the advocates for the right to own guns would appear to actually be only interested in "my right to own guns" or "the right of people like me to own guns" - would they be as enthusiastic about members of black and hispanic communities owning guns to defend their communities against racist attacks?
That doesn't need to be a hypothetical, we already know the answer:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party
That this can be a problem is undeniable, but I’m unconvinced that the answer is for those in authority to decide which group should be able to say what they want and which should be silenced.
For what it’s worth, I think everyone should be free to express (and, of course, be challenged on) their views and opinions, but not to call for violence against others. I certainly don’t agree with the current idea that simply being exposed to an idea one finds offensive is an act of violence from which one should be protected.
There's an awful lot of abstraction in this sentence which makes it hard to discern what you're actually objecting to. Who is espousing this "current idea"? What are they actually advocating? What sort of thing is meant by "an idea one finds offensive"? Who would be doing the protecting?
Right, but everyone has that concept - that the right to express an opinion doesn't include the right to force people to listen or to have a particular platform to express it. It's interesting that you pick an example where this is used to protect vulnerable groups from being abused and threatened by fascists rather than, say, where university management uses it to silence protests against them sucking up to arms dealers. For many students campus is their home and their right to peaceful enjoyment of it trumps the right of the fash (or religious fundamentalists for that matter) to call for gay people to be executed or whatever is the enormity du jour.
The standard response is that the right to free speech does not include immunity to the natural consequences of making that speech.
If Mr. Bun the Baker decides to spend his weekends standing in a public park advocating for something I find objectionable, he has that right, but I also have the right to decide that, in consequence, I won't be patronizing his bakery, and I'll be advising all my friends to boycott him as well.
We have any number of examples of people being filmed being abusively racist in public, and being fired by their employers in consequence. I don't think I see being fired for publicly celebrating the death of another human as especially different from that. Although it does seem to depend on the person who dies - when Osama Bin Laden was killed, nobody looked askance at people celebrating his death. When notorious murderers are executed, nobody gets fired for expressing satisfaction.
And here's Colorado State Rep Matt Soper, on hearing about the death of President Carter:
If it's bad for an ordinary person to celebrate the death of a political opponent, it must be worse for an elected politician to do so, and yet I will note that Mr. Soper is still in office. So if you think that Trump and the Republicans are a pile of stinking hypocrites, you'd probably be right.
As it happens, Mr. Kirk was one of those people.
It appalls me that employers are able to fire people for things they say and do on their own time when those things aren't specifically spelled out as forbidden in employment contracts or employee handbooks.
The link is missing.