zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
For the few that find this acceptable (or even celebrate this), then they must also be able to say:

“If I say something that someone doesn’t like, then they are justified in killing me.”

And accept it.

>>antdke+NF2
Kirk spread misinformation and voiced opinions that were contributing to making the lives of several demographic groups more unsafe, repeatedly, for years, to a massive audience.

Violence isn't the answer and I wish yesterday's event didn't happen, but his actions were a far cry from just "saying something someone might not like"

The first amendment is important, but it has boundaries, and Kirk made a living from being very close (arguably sometimes over) these boundaries. I think his message, which I wholeheartedly disagree with, will be carried on by others, as is their right. But I hope they do it in ways that are more firmly within the healthy boundaries of the first amendment. And if they don't, it should be the courts that decides if they should be penalized, not a lone armed civilian.

>>mguerv+Vc3
>"And if they don't, it should be the courts that decides if they should be penalized, not a lone armed civilian."

And what happens when the courts are to no longer be trusted for impartial or otherwise reasonable verdicts? We use randomness to control corruption in courts through the likes of juries, but First Amendment civil cases are almost always bench trials decided by a judge, or motions via summary judgement. Not juries. What's our fallback and our "check" there?