Raise Your Hand If You’re Glad Charlie Kirk Was Assassinated (So We Know Who You Are) I & I Editoria

[mystery-ak]

Raise Your Hand If You’re Glad Charlie Kirk Was Assassinated (So We Know Who You Are)
I & I Editorial Board
September 12, 2025
1 comment

The assassination of Charlie Kirk was unlike anything any of us on the Issues & Insights editorial board have seen in our lifetimes.

Kirk didn’t hold any political power. He wasn’t rich. He didn’t call for or incite violence. He was a young man of strong beliefs who enjoyed debating other young people on the big issues of the day.

And for that, he was brutally murdered.

You’d think this would cause even his fiercest critics to stop for a moment and take stock in what just happened. If only out of consideration for his wife and two young children.

Instead, we’ve seen an orgy of mindless – no, not mindless, outright evil – celebration.

We will not link to any of the ugliness peddled by vermin who infest social media platforms.

Suffice it to say, they have eagerly raised their hands to be counted as among the most despicable human beings ever to exist.

Very well. Now it’s up to the rest of us to act on this information.

more
https://issuesinsights.com/2025/09/12/raise-your-hand-if-you-are-a-loathsome-human-being/

[Hoodat]

Political Polls
@PpollingNumbers

77% of Republicans believe it is always unacceptable to feel joy at the death of someone they oppose, while only 38% of Democrats share this view (YouGov)

3:24 PM · Sep 11, 2025  ·  1.5M Views

https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1966221315217526925

[mountaineer]

Jay Leno, never a conservative, has stated that the assassination of Charlie Kirk is “the death of free speech.”
Story:

... When someone like Leno, who’s seen the ebbs and flows of cultural tension across decades — who built his career in the thick of comedy, where edgy speech was the currency — says something like this, it doesn’t come lightly. He’s not trying to score political points. He’s not doing the cable news hit circuit. He just sounded shaken.

And honestly? So should we.

Because this isn’t just about one horrific moment at Utah Valley University. This is about what comes next. About what kind of country we’ve become — and what we’re willing to accept. ..

https://ijr.com/jay-leno-comments-on-kirks-death/

The mayor of the small town where we live (we're outside town limits, so we don't vote for mayor) allegedly posted this on social media:

Sad day in America
Flying an American Flag
Half Mase [sic] for a Racist
Priceless

This is a rather ignorant black man, elected to his post by a city that's over 96% white, so I'm not sure how attuned he is to actual racism, especially considering Charlie didn't exhibit it.

Maria Medvin points out there's a site to report the hateful responses posted online, so that employers know exactly what kind of monsters work for them.

https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1966210708393136516

[Free Vulcan]

I believe in two way streets - you live by the rules you set down.

The Left played judge, jury, and executioner with Charlie Kirk. There's no crying or doublespeak rhetoric now if it gets given in return. Not that threats are being made, or actions promised, simply that now you sleep in fear of what may happen.

[Polly Ticks]

http://twitter.com/dougmackeycase/status/1966135182613983516?s=46

[mountaineer]

http://twitter.com/dougmackeycase/status/1966135182613983516?s=46

Union members.

[mountaineer]

Apparently, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Somalia), is delighted.

https://twitter.com/AlphaNewsMN/status/1966578742136127990

[LMAO]

Maria Medvin points out there's a site to report the hateful responses posted online, so that employers know exactly what kind of monsters work for them.

https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1966210708393136516

So now so called conservatives want to label and control "hate speech"

Now I know why the First Amendment protecting free speech is in the constitution

[Hoodat]

[jmyrlefuller]

So now so called conservatives want to label and control "hate speech"

Now I know why the First Amendment protecting free speech is in the constitution

Understand that conservatives have a much higher standard for what that constitutes, and typically that requires the condoning or threatening of deadly violence, especially against nonviolent civilians.

Better to identify and isolate potential killers before they actually kill.

The left's definition of "hate speech" is so broad as to cover anything who questions their dogma, thereby casting a net so wide that the vast majority of it comes from people who are no threat to them.

[bigheadfred]

So now so called conservatives want to label and control "hate speech"

Now I know why the First Amendment protecting free speech is in the constitution

I charm thy life,
From the weapons of strife,
From stone and from wood,
From fire and from flood,
From the serpent’s tooth,
And the beast of blood.
From sickness I charm thee,
And time shall not harm thee;
But earth, which is mine,
Its fruits shall deny thee;
And water shall hear me,
And know thee and flee thee:
And the winds shall not touch thee
When they pass by thee,
And the dews shall not wet thee
When they fall nigh thee.
And thou shalt seek death,
To release thee, in vain;
Thou shalt live in thy pain,
While Kehama shall reign,
With a fire in thy heart,
And a fire in thy brain.
And sleep shall obey me,
And visit thee never,
And the curse shall be on thee
Forever and ever.

  ˌThe Curse Of Kehama   --   Robert Southey

[mountaineer]

So now so called conservatives want to label and control "hate speech"

Now I know why the First Amendment protecting free speech is in the constitution

Big difference between an employer disciplining an employee for reprehensible behavior reflecting badly on the company and the government controlling speech. The first amendment limits the government.

[mountaineer]

re the searchable database of those reveling in Kirk's death:

https://twitter.com/NolteNC/status/1966671506739429402

[Cyber Liberty]

So now so called conservatives want to label and control "hate speech"

Now I know why the First Amendment protecting free speech is in the constitution

Understand that conservatives have a much higher standard for what that constitutes, and typically that requires the condoning or threatening of deadly violence, especially against nonviolent civilians.

Better to identify and isolate potential killers before they actually kill.

The left's definition of "hate speech" is so broad as to cover anything who questions their dogma, thereby casting a net so wide that the vast majority of it comes from people who are no threat to them.

Big difference between an employer disciplining an employee for reprehensible behavior reflecting badly on the company and the government controlling speech. The first amendment limits the government.

Myrle and Mountain are correct while you are wide of the mark. 

[bigheadfred]

This reminds me. I should see if I can login over at TOS. 

[Hoodat]

So now so called conservatives want to label and control "hate speech"

Only a civil society gets to determine what is civil.  No one is limiting anyone's freedom to think and say what they want.  Society is merely establishing standards of civility. 

Now I know why the First Amendment protecting free speech is in the constitution

The First Amendment protects us from Congress.

[LMAO]

Big difference between an employer disciplining an employee for reprehensible behavior reflecting badly on the company and the government controlling speech. The first amendment limits the government.

So you’re OK with college campuses silencing conservatives. After all, that’s not government. Intimidating people to remain silent is in my view, a violation of free speech, even if it may not technically violate the first amendment

I understand that “people are for free speech but…”

I guess free-speech depends on who’s ox is gored


I didn’t realize that saying bad things about Charlie Kirk was supposed to be a firing offense but then again I am kind of a free speech guy and I did vote for the free speech guy in 2024(Libertarian)

I’m not defending what these people have said. I think those  posting their joy over Charlie Kirk’s death let’s the rest of us see who they truly are.

But firing people are seeking to fire people from their employment because you simply don’t like what they said? I’ll pass. And it’s a possibility Charlie Kirk if he was alive, would agree with me.

[mountaineer]

So you’re OK with college campuses silencing conservatives.

That's not what I said. I said the First Amendment limits government, not private employers.

Intimidating people to remain silent is in my view, a violation of free speech, even if it may not technically violate the first amendment

Your view is noted, but it's not the constitution. Anyone but government intimidating people to shut up is not a violation of our freedom of speech, technically or otherwise.

I didn’t realize that saying bad things about Charlie Kirk was supposed to be a firing offense

It's up to the employer to define what is or isn't a firing offense, but if I were one, I'd certainly fire someone who brought such bad PR and notoriety to my company. They didn't just say "bad things about Charlie Kirk." They celebrated his brutal murder. They rejoiced in the blood spatter. They praised the shooter, even praised the bullet. They mocked his family's grief. Their public behavior was shameful, reprehensible and inhumane, and that most certainly was a bad reflection on the businesses who hired them.

[DB]

That's not what I said. I said the First Amendment limits government, not private employers.Your view is noted, but it's not the constitution. Anyone but government intimidating people to shut up is not a violation of our freedom of speech, technically or otherwise.It's up to the employer to define what is or isn't a firing offense, but if I were one, I'd certainly fire someone who brought such bad PR and notoriety to my company. They didn't just say "bad things about Charlie Kirk." They celebrated his brutal murder. They rejoiced in the blood spatter. They praised the shooter, even praised the bullet. They mocked his family's grief. Their public behavior was shameful, reprehensible and inhumane, and that most certainly was a bad reflection on the businesses who hired them.

People have a right to whom the associate with. Period. Free speech isn't without consequences.

Adding to what you said, in case I'm not being clear...

[Hoodat]

So you’re OK with college campuses silencing conservatives. After all, that’s not government. Intimidating people to remain silent is in my view, a violation of free speech, even if it may not technically violate the first amendment

I understand that “people are for free speech but…”  .  .  .

.  .  .  But firing people are seeking to fire people from their employment because you simply don’t like what they said? I’ll pass. And it’s a possibility Charlie Kirk if he was alive, would agree with me.

No one is silencing anyone.  People are not being denied the right to speak freely.  Just keep in mind that there can be consequences to that exercise.

Let's look at this from the viewpoint of the employer.  I once worked as a contractor for a franchisee of a US company.  I provides myself & crew and truck that worked from house to house.  Now let's say I painted on the back of my truck FJB in huge letters.  The franchisee would likely terminate my employment because my statement and actions did not uphold their brand.   Likewise, if one of my crew used profanity in front of customers, I would be pressured to discipline or terminate that crew member.  The one paying the money gets to decide what affects their brand.

No one is denying free speech.  I didn't hire or fire crew members based on their love or hate of Bill Clinton.  But if they did or said anything that negatively affected the value I provided to the franchisee, I was at liberty to deal with it accordingly. 

Here's another example.  Let's use a school example.  Let's say some high school science teacher was moonlighting by producing porn movies.  As a school administrator, do I allow the brand to be tarnished with ridicule as the school that lets porn stars teach?  Do I subject the student body having their attention diverted by extracurricular activities of their instructor?  Certainly not.  No one is stopping the teacher from doing porn.  But that teacher (and everyone else) has to make a decision.  Which is more important?  Honoring their employer and keeping their job?  Or jeopardizing their employment by exercising their free speech/free action rights?

It's always a choice.  No one is denying free speech here.  No one.  People need to grow up here and begin demonstrating civility if they want operate in a civil society.

[Hoodat]

Here's a contrary example, @LMAO

Employee suspended because she called out someone else for heinous comments.

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=568599.msg3216724#msg3216724