Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Here is Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s “hate speech” statement in full context. The broader context does not attenuate what is fundamentally wrong about what she is proposing. She confounds university *policy* with criminal prosecution of “hate speech”. She confounds “hate” *crime* with “hate *speech*”. And she actually contradicts herself...

thevivafrei's profile picture

Viva Frei

758,883 subscribers

62,181 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & PolitikBildungComedy
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Pam Bondi is now using Charlie Kirk's death to oppress free speech under the guise of hate speech, but is this what Charlie would have wanted? Breanna Morello breaks it all down:
2:22

Pam Bondi is now using Charlie Kirk's death to oppress free speech under the guise of hate speech, but is this what Charlie would have wanted? Breanna Morello breaks it all down:

INFOWARS

17,265 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

The full context of Pam Bondi's "hate speech" comments yesterday is insane. Katie Miller says hatred of conservatives on college campuses led to Charlie Kirk's death. Bondi responds by saying antisemitism on college campuses is the real issue at hand, and what the government needs to be focused on, "especially after what happened to Charlie." She then uses Charlie's death to justify unconstitutional prosecution of "hate speech," and spends the next 40 seconds talking about prosecuting antisemitism. I take back what I said yesterday. I don't think Pam Bondi is an idiot, I think she's working on behalf of foreign interests to clamp down on free speech in America –– and I know for a fact Charlie would've spoken out against it.
1:38

The full context of Pam Bondi's "hate speech" comments yesterday is insane. Katie Miller says hatred of conservatives on college campuses led to Charlie Kirk's death. Bondi responds by saying antisemitism on college campuses is the real issue at hand, and what the government needs to be focused on, "especially after what happened to Charlie." She then uses Charlie's death to justify unconstitutional prosecution of "hate speech," and spends the next 40 seconds talking about prosecuting antisemitism. I take back what I said yesterday. I don't think Pam Bondi is an idiot, I think she's working on behalf of foreign interests to clamp down on free speech in America –– and I know for a fact Charlie would've spoken out against it.

SOVEREIGN BRAH 🇺🇸🏛️⚡️

347,497 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

New episode: Pam Bondi says hate speech is not free speech — is she right? FIRE staff (Nico Perrino, Sarah McLaughlin, & Aaron Terr) also take your questions on Charlie Kirk's assassination, President Trump's lawsuit against The New York Times, cancel culture, and more. 00:00 Intro 01:42 Attorney General Pam Bondi's comments that "hate speech" is distinct from "free speech" 02:23 Is it OK for the Department of Justice to target people for "hate speech"? 05:42 How have “hate speech” laws played out overseas? 07:19 President Trump's response to Pam Bondi's “hate speech” remarks 08:50 Are “fighting words,” “incitement,” and “true threats” free speech? 11:22 What about doxxing? 15:15 Is it free speech to celebrate or condone the assassination of Charlie Kirk? 21:52 The termination of k-12 and university faculty in response to their commentary on Kirk's assassination 28:40 Is there a law that might implicate the Discord users who had reason to be aware of malicious intentions the shooter had towards Kirk ahead of the assassination? 30:05 The agency of speakers and those hearing their speech under the incitement standard 31:14 What are the differences between the free speech rights of citizens and non-citizens? 36:20 Does a court filing by President Trump as an individual in the New York Times lawsuit open him up to being deposed about a wide range of behaviors and actions? 37:40 What is the Trump's administration's legal strategy with the New York Times lawsuit? 39:24 What is FIRE doing about private employees being fired for their political commentary? 46:50 What is Charlie Kirk's legacy on free speech? 50:04 What is the difference between the academic protections enjoyed by tenured and non-tenured faculty members? 52:05 Does FIRE trust the Supreme Court to protect free speech? 56:12 How can we prevent capitulation from The New York Times? 59:20 How can ordinary people safely express their opinions on social media and promote civil discourse?
1:05:15

New episode: Pam Bondi says hate speech is not free speech — is she right? FIRE staff (Nico Perrino, Sarah McLaughlin, & Aaron Terr) also take your questions on Charlie Kirk's assassination, President Trump's lawsuit against The New York Times, cancel culture, and more. 00:00 Intro 01:42 Attorney General Pam Bondi's comments that "hate speech" is distinct from "free speech" 02:23 Is it OK for the Department of Justice to target people for "hate speech"? 05:42 How have “hate speech” laws played out overseas? 07:19 President Trump's response to Pam Bondi's “hate speech” remarks 08:50 Are “fighting words,” “incitement,” and “true threats” free speech? 11:22 What about doxxing? 15:15 Is it free speech to celebrate or condone the assassination of Charlie Kirk? 21:52 The termination of k-12 and university faculty in response to their commentary on Kirk's assassination 28:40 Is there a law that might implicate the Discord users who had reason to be aware of malicious intentions the shooter had towards Kirk ahead of the assassination? 30:05 The agency of speakers and those hearing their speech under the incitement standard 31:14 What are the differences between the free speech rights of citizens and non-citizens? 36:20 Does a court filing by President Trump as an individual in the New York Times lawsuit open him up to being deposed about a wide range of behaviors and actions? 37:40 What is the Trump's administration's legal strategy with the New York Times lawsuit? 39:24 What is FIRE doing about private employees being fired for their political commentary? 46:50 What is Charlie Kirk's legacy on free speech? 50:04 What is the difference between the academic protections enjoyed by tenured and non-tenured faculty members? 52:05 Does FIRE trust the Supreme Court to protect free speech? 56:12 How can we prevent capitulation from The New York Times? 59:20 How can ordinary people safely express their opinions on social media and promote civil discourse?

So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

31,314 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

🚨 PROTEST AGAINST CHARLIE KIRK “HATE SPEECH”⁉️ Look at this pathetic tiny protest I caught at the Heritage Foundation in front of his BEAUTIFUL banner: Get married. Have children. Build a legacy. THIS is what they call “HATE SPEECH” and “RAClSM”? Free promo for Charlie! 🤣✊🏻
0:26

🚨 PROTEST AGAINST CHARLIE KIRK “HATE SPEECH”⁉️ Look at this pathetic tiny protest I caught at the Heritage Foundation in front of his BEAUTIFUL banner: Get married. Have children. Build a legacy. THIS is what they call “HATE SPEECH” and “RAClSM”? Free promo for Charlie! 🤣✊🏻

Naomi Seibt

11,619 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Tucker UNLEASHES on AG Pam Bondi with a blistering 3-minute rebuttal to her remarks on “hate speech.” The monologue version of Tucker is back. This is EXACTLY what we need from him right now. “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech. This is the Attorney General of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, telling you that there is this other category called hate speech. And of course, the implication is that’s a crime. There’s almost no sentence that Charlie Kirk. “And I, I’m not running the risk of appropriating his memory for my own ends by saying this. It’s provable. There’s no sentence that Charlie Kirk would have objected to more than that. And you’ve got to think the Attorney General didn’t think it through and was not attempting to desecrate the memory of the person she was purporting to celebrate that she just threw that out there, that she hadn’t thought about it. “You hope that. You hope that Charlie Kirk’s death won’t be used by a group we now call bad actors to create a society that was the opposite of the one he worked to build. You hope that. “You hope that a year from now, the turmoil we’re seeing in the aftermath of his murder won’t be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country. And trust me, if it is, if that does happen. There is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that, ever. “And there never will be. Because if they can tell you what to say, they’re telling you what to think. There is nothing they can’t do to you because they don’t consider you human. They don’t believe you have a soul. A human being with a soul. A free man has a right to say what he believes, not to hurt other people, but to express human his views. “And by the way, that thinking, and not to pile on the Attorney General, who’s a very nice person, but that thinking that she just articulated on camera there is exactly what got us to a place where some huge and horrifying percentage of young people think it’s okay to shoot people you disagree with to kill Nazis for saying things they don’t like. “Why do they believe that? How did we get here? Is it the video games? Is it the SSRIs? Yeah, probably. But what it really is is 12 and then 16 years of indoctrination in our schools at the hands of people who tell them that, who say exactly what the Attorney General just said. “Well, there’s free speech, which of course, we all acknowledge is important, so, so important. But then there’s this thing called hate speech. Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate. But they don’t define it that way. They define it as speech that hurts people, speech that is tantamount to violence. And we punish violence, don’t we? “Of course we do. They’ve been taught that every year of their lives. And so naturally, most of them believe it. When Charlie Kirk is shot in the throat with a .36 on camera. I doubt very many young Americans want to see something like that or actually applaud the death of a man, a father, a husband. “But they’ve been told for their entire lives in schools exactly what Pam Bondi just told them. Well, there’s free speech, but then there’s also hate speech. And woe to those who engage in it because it’s a crime.”
2:56

Tucker UNLEASHES on AG Pam Bondi with a blistering 3-minute rebuttal to her remarks on “hate speech.” The monologue version of Tucker is back. This is EXACTLY what we need from him right now. “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech. This is the Attorney General of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, telling you that there is this other category called hate speech. And of course, the implication is that’s a crime. There’s almost no sentence that Charlie Kirk. “And I, I’m not running the risk of appropriating his memory for my own ends by saying this. It’s provable. There’s no sentence that Charlie Kirk would have objected to more than that. And you’ve got to think the Attorney General didn’t think it through and was not attempting to desecrate the memory of the person she was purporting to celebrate that she just threw that out there, that she hadn’t thought about it. “You hope that. You hope that Charlie Kirk’s death won’t be used by a group we now call bad actors to create a society that was the opposite of the one he worked to build. You hope that. “You hope that a year from now, the turmoil we’re seeing in the aftermath of his murder won’t be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country. And trust me, if it is, if that does happen. There is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that, ever. “And there never will be. Because if they can tell you what to say, they’re telling you what to think. There is nothing they can’t do to you because they don’t consider you human. They don’t believe you have a soul. A human being with a soul. A free man has a right to say what he believes, not to hurt other people, but to express human his views. “And by the way, that thinking, and not to pile on the Attorney General, who’s a very nice person, but that thinking that she just articulated on camera there is exactly what got us to a place where some huge and horrifying percentage of young people think it’s okay to shoot people you disagree with to kill Nazis for saying things they don’t like. “Why do they believe that? How did we get here? Is it the video games? Is it the SSRIs? Yeah, probably. But what it really is is 12 and then 16 years of indoctrination in our schools at the hands of people who tell them that, who say exactly what the Attorney General just said. “Well, there’s free speech, which of course, we all acknowledge is important, so, so important. But then there’s this thing called hate speech. Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate. But they don’t define it that way. They define it as speech that hurts people, speech that is tantamount to violence. And we punish violence, don’t we? “Of course we do. They’ve been taught that every year of their lives. And so naturally, most of them believe it. When Charlie Kirk is shot in the throat with a .36 on camera. I doubt very many young Americans want to see something like that or actually applaud the death of a man, a father, a husband. “But they’ve been told for their entire lives in schools exactly what Pam Bondi just told them. Well, there’s free speech, but then there’s also hate speech. And woe to those who engage in it because it’s a crime.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

262,867 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Free speech is not for the speech you like or for the people you like. Free speech is for the speech that you hate of the people you despise. If you're for free speech, you have to be for their free speech, or else you're not for free speech. You're for the government breaking the constitution. Full Video:
1:16

Free speech is not for the speech you like or for the people you like. Free speech is for the speech that you hate of the people you despise. If you're for free speech, you have to be for their free speech, or else you're not for free speech. You're for the government breaking the constitution. Full Video:

Jimmy Dore

69,678 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Karnatka's Hate Speech Bill: Congress government in Karnataka has tabled a bill that claims to curb hate speech, but it attempts to risk free speech! The wording of the bill is vague and open to interpretation, which means even ordinary statements could be judged as ill will and lead to serious criminal action. India already has laws to deal with hate speech, and even the Supreme Court has said that the real problem is weak enforcement, not the absence of law. When the line between free speech and crime becomes unclear, people begin to self censor out of fear rather than responsibility!
2:16

Karnatka's Hate Speech Bill: Congress government in Karnataka has tabled a bill that claims to curb hate speech, but it attempts to risk free speech! The wording of the bill is vague and open to interpretation, which means even ordinary statements could be judged as ill will and lead to serious criminal action. India already has laws to deal with hate speech, and even the Supreme Court has said that the real problem is weak enforcement, not the absence of law. When the line between free speech and crime becomes unclear, people begin to self censor out of fear rather than responsibility!

Praffulgarg

11,269 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

When I was growing up, it never made sense to me that the KKK and the Nazis were allowed to have marches, spewing their hate openly despite their violent, hateful past. It was explained to me that under the 1st Amendment, their speech is protected, no matter how disagreeable or hateful it is. TODAY, Pam Bondi said that you can be targeted by the DOJ for free speech if you say mean things about Charlie Kirk or trump because that is "hate speech." Doesn’t that LITERALLY contradict the principle the right has been celebrating about Charlie Kirk? Isn’t that… unconstitutional?
0:30

When I was growing up, it never made sense to me that the KKK and the Nazis were allowed to have marches, spewing their hate openly despite their violent, hateful past. It was explained to me that under the 1st Amendment, their speech is protected, no matter how disagreeable or hateful it is. TODAY, Pam Bondi said that you can be targeted by the DOJ for free speech if you say mean things about Charlie Kirk or trump because that is "hate speech." Doesn’t that LITERALLY contradict the principle the right has been celebrating about Charlie Kirk? Isn’t that… unconstitutional?

BrooklynDad_Defiant!☮️

983,037 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Candace Owens: " Pam Bondi, who is a complete loser and a tool, is trying to use the assassination of Charlie Kirk to lay the groundwork for hate speech laws in America.. .They wanna pass speech laws which will give them the full power to go after you for wrong think."
1:26

Candace Owens: " Pam Bondi, who is a complete loser and a tool, is trying to use the assassination of Charlie Kirk to lay the groundwork for hate speech laws in America.. .They wanna pass speech laws which will give them the full power to go after you for wrong think."

Home of the Brave

1,702,294 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

DISTURBING: Charlie Kirk’s assassination is already being weaponized to justify a crackdown on free speech. What began as outrage over vile online celebrations of his death is now morphing into government demands to police “hate speech.” Rep. Clay Higgins has called for lifetime bans from social media and even revoking driver’s licenses for those who mocked Kirk’s murder. Attorney General Pam Bondi went further, vowing to target Americans for “hate speech”—a term with no legal standing in the United States. Violence and incitement are already crimes, yet Bondi is blurring words with actions, echoing the same speech codes that see 30 people a day jailed in the UK for memes. Even President Trump hesitated when pressed on First Amendment rights. But Kirk’s own words left no doubt: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America.” He fought—and ultimately died—for that principle. Will Republicans now cross the red line Kirk warned us about? ZeeeMediaOfficial's report shows why this fight could define the future of free speech. Watch the full episode:👇
12:14

DISTURBING: Charlie Kirk’s assassination is already being weaponized to justify a crackdown on free speech. What began as outrage over vile online celebrations of his death is now morphing into government demands to police “hate speech.” Rep. Clay Higgins has called for lifetime bans from social media and even revoking driver’s licenses for those who mocked Kirk’s murder. Attorney General Pam Bondi went further, vowing to target Americans for “hate speech”—a term with no legal standing in the United States. Violence and incitement are already crimes, yet Bondi is blurring words with actions, echoing the same speech codes that see 30 people a day jailed in the UK for memes. Even President Trump hesitated when pressed on First Amendment rights. But Kirk’s own words left no doubt: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America.” He fought—and ultimately died—for that principle. Will Republicans now cross the red line Kirk warned us about? ZeeeMediaOfficial's report shows why this fight could define the future of free speech. Watch the full episode:👇

Vigilant Fox 🦊

84,635 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Zali Steggall tries to defend Grace Tame by claiming Australians have “freedom of speech” Wrong We are not America Zali championed the hate speech laws that even further restrict speech…and she wanted to go even further Teal hypocrisy is staggering #AustraliaFirst 🇦🇺
2:57

Zali Steggall tries to defend Grace Tame by claiming Australians have “freedom of speech” Wrong We are not America Zali championed the hate speech laws that even further restrict speech…and she wanted to go even further Teal hypocrisy is staggering #AustraliaFirst 🇦🇺

Katherine Deves 🇦🇺

31,744 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

🚨 “OF COURSE THEY ARE ARRESTED FOR HATEFUL SPEECH” 🇩🇪 Leftist media expert gets EXPOSED by Steven Crowder lying about free speech in Germany. “We have freedom of speech. We could write whatever we wanted to.” Then she ADMITS this excludes “hate speech” - defined by the government.
0:37

🚨 “OF COURSE THEY ARE ARRESTED FOR HATEFUL SPEECH” 🇩🇪 Leftist media expert gets EXPOSED by Steven Crowder lying about free speech in Germany. “We have freedom of speech. We could write whatever we wanted to.” Then she ADMITS this excludes “hate speech” - defined by the government.

Naomi Seibt

41,245 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

A few weeks ago the Irish government informed the EU that they would not go along with demands to force hate speech laws on the people of Ireland. Today, the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance has once again urged Ireland to implement hate speech laws. But even regime friendly media is reacting negatively to this news. There will never be hate speech laws in Ireland, it's time for the tyrants at the European Commission to accept that.
0:48

A few weeks ago the Irish government informed the EU that they would not go along with demands to force hate speech laws on the people of Ireland. Today, the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance has once again urged Ireland to implement hate speech laws. But even regime friendly media is reacting negatively to this news. There will never be hate speech laws in Ireland, it's time for the tyrants at the European Commission to accept that.

MichaeloKeeffe

166,810 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Dear frens… This clip of AG Pam Bondi is being taken widely out of context… and what’s going around leaves left out several key seconds. "There's free speech, and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society. We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech." In the additional seconds left out, she was referring to college campuses and how people are being targeted for their political or ideological beliefs, like conservative or Jewish students. People have to understand College Campuses are a big problem, where American youth is being influenced by foreign and domestic megadonors. Take that for what you will.. but the clips circulating about Bondi are not reflecting the entire conversation accurately. And I think it’s being done on purpose. 🔻 My Counter Argumentative Mind, Playing the Devil’s Advocate • On one hand, literally right now, we have 250 U.S. Lawmakers QUIETLY in Israel, under the banner of “50 States One Israel”. Will criticism of Israel be labeled as “hate speech”? Time will tell… but again, these are US LAWMAKERS. Why are US lawmakers in Israel from every single state? We may or may not see in the coming months the true intention of this visit. • On the other hand, she clearly is discussing in the context of college campuses and political violence, and as I’ve already reported, these “protests” on college campuses have financial ties to the Rockefeller’s and George Soros, etc… There is a fine line we’re walking here… “Hate Speech” no matter how ugly, is protected by the US CONSTITUTION. There is no law against saying hateful things. We cannot allow “hate speech” to spiral into what we’re seeing Europe. Therefore, I’m willing to let this play out before I react because I do trust President Trump. That is where I stand.
1:40

Dear frens… This clip of AG Pam Bondi is being taken widely out of context… and what’s going around leaves left out several key seconds. "There's free speech, and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society. We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech." In the additional seconds left out, she was referring to college campuses and how people are being targeted for their political or ideological beliefs, like conservative or Jewish students. People have to understand College Campuses are a big problem, where American youth is being influenced by foreign and domestic megadonors. Take that for what you will.. but the clips circulating about Bondi are not reflecting the entire conversation accurately. And I think it’s being done on purpose. 🔻 My Counter Argumentative Mind, Playing the Devil’s Advocate • On one hand, literally right now, we have 250 U.S. Lawmakers QUIETLY in Israel, under the banner of “50 States One Israel”. Will criticism of Israel be labeled as “hate speech”? Time will tell… but again, these are US LAWMAKERS. Why are US lawmakers in Israel from every single state? We may or may not see in the coming months the true intention of this visit. • On the other hand, she clearly is discussing in the context of college campuses and political violence, and as I’ve already reported, these “protests” on college campuses have financial ties to the Rockefeller’s and George Soros, etc… There is a fine line we’re walking here… “Hate Speech” no matter how ugly, is protected by the US CONSTITUTION. There is no law against saying hateful things. We cannot allow “hate speech” to spiral into what we’re seeing Europe. Therefore, I’m willing to let this play out before I react because I do trust President Trump. That is where I stand.

MJTruthUltra

32,575 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

The Labor Government is planning to create a national database of hate speech online. The police all around Australia already have the tools they need to deal with threats of violence. When "hate" is the criteria, the slippery slope is real. Free speech is under attack in Australia. To hear more from me and stay up to date, signup to my email newsletter here:
1:57

The Labor Government is planning to create a national database of hate speech online. The police all around Australia already have the tools they need to deal with threats of violence. When "hate" is the criteria, the slippery slope is real. Free speech is under attack in Australia. To hear more from me and stay up to date, signup to my email newsletter here:

Senator Alex Antic

19,117 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Even Tucker Carlson is raising awareness that California is ending Free Speech with passed legislation Elon Musk needs to be aware of this “The state of California — has passed a law in the state legislature, both chambers of the state legislature, it awaits a signature from Gavin Newsom, that would ban hate speech on the internet in California. Hate speech. Now, how do they define hate speech? I actually have the definition. I actually wrote it down because I was so shocked by it that this is happening. The state of California, if Gavin Newsom signs this law, and he has until October 13th to do it, he, people will be fined if the censors determine that speech constitutes, and we're quoting now, "Violence, intimidation, or coercion..." What's intimidation or coercion — coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics. Obviously, white Christian men are not covered under that - The state of California under Gavin Newsom is about to, we think, censor the opinions of Americans. Not to protect anybody, but to shield themselves from criticism so they can continue to do what they want to do in secret.” This new law will impose millions and millions of dollars in fines forcing social media companies to censor what California Democrats define as hate speech
2:17

Even Tucker Carlson is raising awareness that California is ending Free Speech with passed legislation Elon Musk needs to be aware of this “The state of California — has passed a law in the state legislature, both chambers of the state legislature, it awaits a signature from Gavin Newsom, that would ban hate speech on the internet in California. Hate speech. Now, how do they define hate speech? I actually have the definition. I actually wrote it down because I was so shocked by it that this is happening. The state of California, if Gavin Newsom signs this law, and he has until October 13th to do it, he, people will be fined if the censors determine that speech constitutes, and we're quoting now, "Violence, intimidation, or coercion..." What's intimidation or coercion — coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics. Obviously, white Christian men are not covered under that - The state of California under Gavin Newsom is about to, we think, censor the opinions of Americans. Not to protect anybody, but to shield themselves from criticism so they can continue to do what they want to do in secret.” This new law will impose millions and millions of dollars in fines forcing social media companies to censor what California Democrats define as hate speech

Wall Street Apes

867,001 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

I don’t think the young man who killed Charlie Kirk for “spreading hate” did so because he listened to Charlie & formed his own conclusions. He & so many lost souls from his generation have been told what to think by a relentless brainwashing campaign from the media & the indoctrination factories that our schools have become, which teach people that President Trump, Charlie, & conservatives are the worst people in the world, That political speech they disagree with is violence, & that the appropriate response to that speech IS violence.
2:30

I don’t think the young man who killed Charlie Kirk for “spreading hate” did so because he listened to Charlie & formed his own conclusions. He & so many lost souls from his generation have been told what to think by a relentless brainwashing campaign from the media & the indoctrination factories that our schools have become, which teach people that President Trump, Charlie, & conservatives are the worst people in the world, That political speech they disagree with is violence, & that the appropriate response to that speech IS violence.

Kari Lake

481,489 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

.David Sacks explains how the establishment uses hate speech as a red herring to mask their true intention of exerting political censorship and controlling the narrative: "What the left has wanted to do since Elon Musk took over Twitter is to say that this is about allowing more hate on the platform, and that has never been the motivation for those of us who care about free speech... What is our main concern about censorship? It is political suppression. It's about narrative control. It's not like we want more hate on the platform. We want a level playing field. We don't want the thought police at Twitter putting their thumb on the scale of American democracy and deciding who has a voice and who doesn't. That's what this is really about. The people who believe in censorship want to make you think that this is about allowing more hate, and it's not."
1:22

.David Sacks explains how the establishment uses hate speech as a red herring to mask their true intention of exerting political censorship and controlling the narrative: "What the left has wanted to do since Elon Musk took over Twitter is to say that this is about allowing more hate on the platform, and that has never been the motivation for those of us who care about free speech... What is our main concern about censorship? It is political suppression. It's about narrative control. It's not like we want more hate on the platform. We want a level playing field. We don't want the thought police at Twitter putting their thumb on the scale of American democracy and deciding who has a voice and who doesn't. That's what this is really about. The people who believe in censorship want to make you think that this is about allowing more hate, and it's not."

KanekoaTheGreat

2,174,969 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren