““The MAGA Gang (is) desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.””
If this is all he said, then this is a political cancellation that goes against everything many on the right used to say they stand for. Kimmel’s statement is not totally accurate, but is hardly beyond the pale.
People get mad when you quote some of what Charlie Kirk said because a lot of what he said was misleading or false. People praise Charlie Kirk for being for free speech and then demand others stop exercising their free speech because they pointed out that Kirk had some bad ideas.
Some on the right are using Kirk’s death to encourage further violence. They often cherry-pick examples of violence that exclude violence done by people more on the right, and blame all “the left” or all “Democrats” even though almost no one on the left had anything to do with Kirk’s death.
“Law enforcement officials on Sunday removed a peace vigil that had stood outside the White House for more than four decades after President Donald Trump ordered it to be taken down as part of the clearing of homeless encampments in the nation’s capital.
Philipos Melaku-Bello, a volunteer who has manned the vigil for years, told The Associated Press that the Park Police removed it early Sunday morning. He said officials justified the removal by mislabeling the memorial as a shelter.
“The difference between an encampment and a vigil is that an encampment is where homeless people live,” Melaku-Bello said. “As you can see, I don’t have a bed. I have signs and it is covered by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.”
…
The small but persistent act of protest was brought to Trump’s attention during an event at the While House on Friday.
Brian Glenn, a correspondent for the conservative network Real America’s Voice, told Trump the blue tent was an “eyesore” for those who come to the White House.
“Just out front of the White House is a blue tent that originally was put there to be an anti-nuclear tent for nuclear arms,” Glenn said. “It’s kind of morphed into more of an anti-American, sometimes anti-Trump at many times.”
Trump, who said he was not aware of it, told his staff: “Take it down. Take it down today, right now.”
A lot of conservative complaints about free speech infringements are not defending free speech, but defending harassment of disabilities and incitement of in real life harassment. Joe Rogan has trouble understanding the difference between making fun of someone who regularly says stupid stuff about politics on his show, and making fun of someone’s disability.
Trump continues to bully and sue to suppress the press and free speech. He knows that just to defend a lawsuit is incredibly expensive, and hopes that people just give in.
President Trump literally arrested a legal resident based on his speech. This is a huge, massive infringement of basic democratic rights by a president who ran on free speech.
Because the man was educated, in custody, people getting deported would talk to him and ask him questions. A man who had been in the country for over 20 years and had four children under 11, was showing up to his immigration hearing when he was grabbed to be deported. Another person asked him what a paper he signed was. The paper said he was to be deported. Another 19-year old asked if it would be safe for his mom to visit him, the answer was no. The immigration detention center had a lot of crying people in it. These people were depicted as criminals by the administration when they were picked up at their immigration hearings and their jobs.
Khalil missed the birth of his child because Trump decided to arrest him based on speech. The justification required the Secretary of State to go along with it. Marco Rubio did, losing what little dignity he had left. Khalil requested to be temporarily let out for the birth of his child. HIs request was denied.
I disagree with a lot of what he says about Palestine and Israel, but his detention was an insult to the principles that democracy stands on.
“Carr, in other words, thinks it is entirely appropriate for federal regulators to demand “significant changes” in the way news organizations operate, including what they cover, how they cover it, the sources they interview, the people they invite to comment on current events, and the way they respond to complaints of bias. He is explicitly setting the FCC up as an arbiter of good journalism.
That power grab is consistent with Carr’s understanding of the government’s role in the marketplace of ideas, which he thinks should include restricting the editorial discretion of social media platforms in the name of “reining in Big Tech” and preventing “discrimination against core political viewpoints.” Carr, an avowed free speech champion, presents his concerns about broadcast news bias in similar terms, saying “a handful of national programmers” should not “control and dictate to the American what the narrative is, what they can say, what they can think.” As with his vendetta against “Big Tech,” he perversely portrays government interference with private editorial decisions as a victory for freedom of speech.
Contrary to that puzzling take, FCC oversight of broadcast journalism does not protect First Amendment rights; it undermines them. Such meddling would be obviously unconstitutional in the context of print, cable, satellite, streaming, or online journalism. For reasons that make less and less sense every day, broadcasting is treated differently, supposedly because government licensing and regulation are necessary to address “the scarcity of radio frequencies.””