I appreciate your concern about the consequences of hate speech in our society - it’s very woke of you.
3 Likes
I just got banned from Mastodon (in their main instance) a couple of days ago by doing just that 
2 Likes
Mastodon, and various instances have never really been known for good moderation, and part of that is because they are too large with too many reports. I remember when we had one, after an event like this you’d get all sorts of weird people signing up with their weird little reasons.
3 Likes
What a way to show as a leader of Privacy Guides. (I know you are attempting humor right there, still not the right time or a way to show leadership or to fix divisions as a advocate/leader)
It is not about mourning a “party leader to an adequate degree” as you say. It is about actually being concerned with a society that is fine with a father of two being assassinated in front of his wife and children that were in attendance. In front of a bunch of people on live TV.
You can still disagree with his comments and what he stood for. It is the lack of humanity that is concerning in this world. In every political spectrum.
Republican or not, celebrating death of another person because of their opinions or views should never be acceptable.
“It is funny how people in the privacy sphere don’t see this. We all fight and advocate for different things and have different opinions on privacy, but don’t wish harm on each other. For those opinions”.
Especially since things we fight for can be seen as extreme and a part of the issue in terms of fighting against things like age verification which that fighting is seen as a protection for predators.
Now my personal opinion is that I want age verification. But not an invasive one, one that uses a open source technology, that is tax payer funded and mandated by law. Similar to how Passkeys are private the verification would just give a yes or no if over 18.
Now this is my opinion on age verification and it is just one brief solution to an on going problem and others may not agree and that is alright. As, everyone has an opinion whether that is helping a problem or not. But that is still their opinion and freedom of speech.
But it does not spread hate and is not hate speech. It is how we view a society and how that should work for others.
Whether that is Trans rights (whether you are for care for children or not), you support religion (or not), gun rights (Or how you interpret the second amendment in America as a American) etc. None of that is hate speech that is views.
We all need to learn to talk to each other, learn to disagree respectfully and to actually listen to another persons point of view. But still see each other as just human beings and not evil people when we disagree because we all have different views than others on a different political side. As we are all individuals and are unique in are thinking.
Edit: (Sep 16 7:20 AM): Fixed some typos.
Edit: (Sep 16 7:33 PM): Added one more thing at the end.
3 Likes
Hateful speech for me but not for thee? Where do we draw the line of acceptable and non acceptable free speech? Who’s going to enforce that line?
Speech acceptable or not is a moral issue, and a fine debate, but we should all be very cautious in treading it to become a government issue. It’s a slippery slope for government to use such rulings to massively gain censorship power.
2 Likes
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
First amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment is just the prevention from the government (Congress). To not infringe on your first amendment rights.
That does not mean others, social media moderators, neighbors, companies (boss etc). Cannot have views or penalize you for your speech that you spew.
We as a society determine that speech. People cry out as one and determine as a majority what is acceptable or not and what wins in speech sticks.
3 Likes
I’ll defer back to my Horst Wessel comparison. Legality does not imply morality, and the inverse.
I consider your train of thought observational, and not sided. Great for explaining the why. However, sometimes you’ve gotta take a stance that isn’t the acceptable norm to make change happen.
2 Likes
True, but there are certain lines as a majority that we should not cross.
And dehumanizing people on their opinions and speech is one of those. As, once one side does it and the other side starts doing it. It create a slippery slope of more violence to people. Who are good people with just opinions (freedom of speech).
Think of it as this. You normalize this and then people who are crazy and unhinged feel vindicated on both sides.
This in turn may make them look up voting records of others or anyone else with different opinions and try to do the same. That was done to this political speaker. But now probably not just go for political speakers. But normal ordinary individuals or families, who are just voting on their opinions and world view.
We as a society should not let that chaos happens. So, us as a society should not accept this form of speech in America.
But that is just my opinion and freedom of speech and I hope it wins with the majority of loud voices in media.
1 Like
I agree we probably shouldn’t do it. Not because it is wrong, but because of the consequences it leads to.
Personally, I think this specific case blurs the line. That line is blurred by what is believe is “we should not tolerate the intolerable”. I agree with this, but it’s the concept that those who actively seek to dismantle protections of people and democracy itself that should not be tolerated. Nazis fall in an intolerable category as it’s simple. I would throw anyone who erodes democracy towards dictatorship also falls in this category. In this case, it’s the idea reducing protections of gay people by his agreement with capital punishment, his idea that the civil rights movement was bad. I consider these ideas intolerable.
So no, while I will not publicly celebrate his death, I’m not particularly mourning it either. I mourn the loss of a father, not the loss of someone who thinks gay people should die.
I don’t know if he is ever quoted saying gay people should die. “If you could find that it would be great.” as, all I can find is:
“In a now-deleted post, King wrote, “He advocated stoning gays to death. Just sayin’,” in response to a post by Fox News host Jesse Watters, who had called Kirk a “patriot.”
Following criticism online, King deleted the post and issued an apology on X.
I apologize for saying Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays. What he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages.”
In a post, the author claimed, “[Kirk] advocated stoning gays to death. Just sayin.” He later deleted the post.
I have apologized. Charlie Kirk never advocated stoning gays to death. https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1966323295025860811
— Stephen King (@StephenKingStephenKing) September 12, 2025
"This is what I get for reading something on Twitter w/o fact-checking. Won’t happen again.”
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62n6ql215ro\\]
Kirk’s stance on gay and transgender rights was particularly polarising.
He opposed same-sex marriage and argued against gender care for transgender people, often citing his Christian faith on these issues.
“I believe marriage is one man one woman,” he wrote in 2019.
“Also gay people should be welcome in the conservative movement. As Christians we are called to love everyone,” he said.
But that is still an opinion (freedom of speech). Anyone who ushers this speech will have to face the conquences in work life or social. As, other should face with celebrating the murder. As the majority have already came out with their speech and talked saying it is wrong to say and not everyone has that view including republicans. Not all republicans are gay hating monsters, as the media portrays. (There are gay conservatives out there FYI)
That is why it is a shame that people throw around words like Nazi and put people in groups. It is a carless use of their freedom of speech to advance their cause or political agenda. That further instills violence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/style/gay-men-trump-administration-republicans.html
Mr. Moran, 44, is the pasha of a new power tribe in the capital: the gay men of the Trump administration.
These are the A-Gays. They’re (mostly) out, they’re proud (to work for President Trump) and they have big jobs inside (or alongside) this administration. They wield influence all over town, from the Pentagon to the State Department to the White House to the Kennedy Center.
“We’re like Visa,” Mr. Moran said. “Everywhere you want to be.”
He sipped a dirty vodka martini and surveyed the room. Two Republican men waved at him from across the club. “Both gay,” he explained. This was also true of the middle-aged Trump appointee who ambled over a moment later to catch up. But apparently not so of the young-looking White House aide who approached a few minutes after that. “Straight as an arrow,” Mr. Moran said as the aide walked away.
He laughed and added, “I hang out with my straights just as easily as I hang out with my gays.”
Why should gays and lesbians be interested in you as a presidential candidate?
I grew up in New York City, a town with different races, religions, and peoples. It breeds tolerance. In all truth, I don’t care whether or not a person is gay. I judge people based on their capability, honesty, and merit. Being in the entertainment business – that is, owning casinos and … several large beauty pageants – I’ve worked with many gay people. I have met some tough, talented, capable, terrific people. Their lifestyle is of no interest to me.
Would we see gay people in a Trump administration?
I would want the best and brightest. Sexual orientation would be meaningless. I’m looking for brains and experience. If the best person for the job happens to be gay, I would certainly appoint them. One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace, good people don’t go into government. I’d want to change that.
What is Donald Trump’s stance on same-sex marriage?
Trump’s stance on gay marriage has varied over the years.Trump expressed support for domestic partnerships in an interview he did with The Advocate in 2000, as reported by CBS News. The signal of support came at a time when many in the GOP did not share such a stance. Later, in 2015, he told CNN he supported “traditional marriage.” But days after being elected in 2016 in a “60 Minutes” interview, he said he was “fine” with same-sex marriage, a far cry from the 2016 GOP platform, which critiqued the Supreme Court decision that granted the federal right to same-sex marriage.
When asked by NBC News if Trump planned to roll back same-sex marriage, incoming press secretary Karoline Leavitt, said "that was never a campaign promise that he made.” Representatives for the Trump campaign and presidential transition team did not respond to multiple inquiries from USA TODAY.
So, to me it seems Trump’s views on Gay people have not changed. Just his views of Transgender people are different from other people’s opinions? But I could be wrong. Or he is supporting some of his base and not going with his personal views?
Well atleast you have the empathy to see a father and to dissociate his views from him being a political figure. That is what should be the view. You keep your own views but you still see him as a person.
1 Like
Happy to be wrong about the former, but I still stand that beliefs like this are intolerable.
(post deleted by author)
To be clear, the Blueys aren’t the ones changing their opinions. It’s the Reddies who need to see which side was hurt first before making an opinion.
1 Like
A journalist was fired for just quoting Kirk. What stupid game was she playing educating us?
2 Likes
The point I was making was that when things become that only two separate teams or tribes people seem to adopt all the positions and behaviors associated with that group leaving no space for nuanced or middle-ground perspectives. I think it largely happens because of friendship circles and fear of ostracism for a differing opinion.
5 Likes
What do you want me to say? Welcome to the internet? It isn’t everything new, social media has always been used to cancel people they don’t like.
It isn’t my fight and I don’t really care who is right and worng about it.
The only thing I care about, about Charlie kirk murder is the outcome and consequences of it. Which rights do you want to lose for good boy points on social media?
Stupid people makes stupid laws.
1 Like
Regardless of beliefs on the matter, this is likely the on topic be discussion to try to anchor to.
1 Like
I was making a joke. But it is actually true: violent rhetoric aimed at people due to their politics, gender, age, sexuality, ethnicity, etc. is hate speech. Here’s the definition. What you’re condemning is one form of hate speech. Don’t just take my word for it, I’m following Pam Bondi’s lead. Welcome to wokeness (which is a meaningless word these days - if it ever meant anything at all).
On a serious note: Personally I think anyone publicly posting online, especially under their real name, celebrating someone’s death needs to log off and take a break from the internet to unscramble their brain.
Nonetheless the sudden pleas for civility are clearly hollow when they come from the same folks who previously ignored, mocked, or reveled in political violence. It’s clearly being used as a pretext to police and punish speech the government and right wing do not like, including with watchlists of targets. Not everyone caught up in that celebrated Kirk’s death. Some literally just quoted things Charlie Kirk said, and they’re being punished for it. This is all the more ironic coming from previously self-described free speech absolutists.
None of the people who spun up conspiracies about Melissa Hortman’s murder were targeted by the government for their speech . None of the people who made fun of Paul Pelosi for getting attacked were put on were put on watchlists or thrown out of their jobs. One of them is our current president.
I agree, we have to stop escalating the rhetoric and political violence in this country. But anyone who had no issue with Paul Pelosi or Melissa Hortman getting attacked and suddenly wants to preach deescalation now is full of shit. A ton of them are preaching deescalation out of one side of their mouth while urging escalation and crackdowns out of the other. They’re full of shit.
One also cannot address our increasing political violence and polarization without looking at the factors that led us here. Are we also concerned about social media algorithms, education, misinformation? Are we looking at violent extremist groups on both left and right, which are growing in number and size? No, we’re not. The administration’s current rhetoric and position is that the issue is Democrats. Wow, how convenient. They’re full of shit and using it to crack down on dissent.
I will take the brave stance here that assassinations, death threats, and violent rhetoric are bad. That concern has to apply to everyone, and it needs to be proportionate to how violent their rhetoric is. Joe Shmo being happy that Charlie Kirk died is distasteful but is of less concern to me than violent rhetoric like:
Joe Biden is a bumbling dementia filled Alzheimer’s corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.
That’s a Charlie Kirk quote, by the way. He broadcast it out to his millions of followers. It’s just one of many incendiary, divisive, and/or violent things he said. I condemn both that and the people celebrating his assassination.
And I condemn the government of the United States using distasteful social media posts - including some that are literally just verbatim quotes of Charlie Kirk - as a pretext to purge our schools, colleges, and government of ideological opponents. It’s an extremely obvious crackdown on free speech that only runs one direction.
That should be of grave concern to any and all privacy activists and privacy-minded individuals, like those on this forum, regardless of how you vote.
8 Likes
And those folks are just as bad as the ones celebrating they’re the problem, not the solution. So don’t be like them (not saying you specifically, just speaking generally) and actually listen, have real debates, and talk instead of calling people Nazis, homophobic, or Communists, woke, at socialists or progressive Dems just 'cause they disagree with certain solutions or challenge your worldview. Dialogue solves wars it can fix divisions too. But in America, from what I see as someone who lives here, people on both sides don’t really wanna solve stuff. They’d rather sit, complain, blame others, and let problems grow instead of talking civilly to find common ground and make compromises. Politicians are also the worst at this they feed off this fear and conflict because it helps them win votes.
The definition you provided by Cambridge:
public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.):
Violent rhetoric, yes is hate speech.
But hate is subjective. Someone can have a different opinion towards a matter pertaining towards the LGBTQ+ community and it is not hate speech.
You have to openly and clearly express disgust like saying you can’t live near a group or hate their existence and call for violence, like death, for it to actually be hate speech. Just talking about gay or trans issues with a differing opinion isn’t hate speech. If someone doesn’t publicly say they hate that group or explain why they’re discussing it, you can’t assume they do. You can’t get inside someone’s head you don’t know their experiences or why they support a certain view on a divisive issue.
(I’m not talking about Charlie here. He said his stance comes from his religious beliefs, and that was his right.)
You can look at actions, but if they as an individual haven’t actually harmed anyone physically or through clear threats then there’s no proof of hate unless they say it outright. Intent matters. Opinions can hurt, but that shouldn’t stop us from asking difficult questions.
People have the right to speak up about how their kids are being taught and when they feel officials are overreaching. Just like gay and trans people have the right to speak up about issues in their communities. And we all have the right to talk about things that affect the kids we’re raising and the kind of world we’re building so we can work together to find better solutions, even if others don’t see a problem.
Here is United Nations actual definition. That there is no universal definition for hate speech.
However, to date there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still under discussion, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality.
Hate speech is often used to shut down conversation like saying “I don’t like this, so stop talking about it.” While it can be used for good, some abuse it to silence others. No one should go to jail just for expressing an opinion, unless it’s extreme like calling for the death of a group or individual. We need to move past the point where any controversial topic gets labeled hate speech just for being discussed. And no, people celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death isn’t hate speech but that doesn’t mean it’s okay or shows any decency. It’s still cruel and pointless.
Yeah, that was not a thoughtful way to voice his speech and it was wrong. I am not trying to defend him and personally, I don’t subscribe to his beliefs. But that speech causes more issues in are political climate and it doesn’t matter who you subscribe to. Or who you identify as. If you speak like that it brings no good solutions. With that all being said that still doesn’t warrant death upon an individual.
1 Like
This is not directed to anyone because thankfully this conversation topic has not reached that point of incivility yet. But I would like to remind everyone to keep things civil and on-topic despite the political nature of this topic.
The fundamental notions of what constitutes hate speech vs free speech is important, this is a privacy and security forum, not a political one.
Anyways, I’m sure Charlie Kirk’s death was tragic in the grand scheme of what’s going on in the United States right now, but I frankly do not care about what he said before his death compared to what is actually going on now. That is, the active censorship of people exposing their personal beliefs. Some online posts may be genuinely celebrating his death but others are taken out of context.
We can complain about doxxing or cancel culture all we want, but it won’t really do anything unless people stop posting their personal beliefs online. No public institution or company want to affiliate themselves with an employee that post pictures of themselves drinking at parties, much less celebrating a controversial figure’s death or appearing to do so out of context.
I don’t like what is going on right now, but there has to be some level of personal responsibility for one’s digital footprint here. Is it hypocritical? Probably. But keep in mind that plenty of folks have been fired for expressing far-right extremist beliefs before. It’s just that a massive wave is going on now for the other side because of current events.
The mainstream narrative is to condemn political violence and not speak ill of the dead. Don’t say anything otherwise unless you have a online pseudonym and practice good OpSec.
15 Likes