magicalkittycat
No bio...
User ID: 3762
Involuntary commitment for pure political speech is one of those places where most of the examples you're going to reject as unverified because it wasn't examined by the courts
Yes I would if it was just complaints by people claiming something without taking it to the court.
Brandon Raub.
Which leads to an interesting thing here, since looking it up Raub did try to litigate, and failed since the decision to detain Raub didn't seem to based meaningfully off of his speech, even if it was a bad decision.
The court next evaluated Mr. Raub's claim that Mr. Campbell violated his First Amendment rights by detaining Mr. Raub for his “unorthodox political statements” (Raub, p 885), namely, his beliefs concerning 9/11 conspiracies and impending revolution. The court determined that, even if Mr. Raub's statements were protected speech and a contributing factor to Mr. Campbell's determination that Mr. Raub must be detained, it was not dispositive. The court reasoned that in addition to considering these statements, Mr. Campbell based his recommendation for detainment on personal observations of Mr. Raub's demeanor, the observations of law enforcement, and information provided by the reporting third party. The court agreed with the district court that there was no First Amendment violation and Mr. Campbell was entitled to qualified immunity.
https://jaapl.org/custom-print/66099
Given the first and main example does not appear to be accurate, the overarching idea falls apart.
Lower courts abusing involuntary medication to the point of violating the law because someone is just really annoying happen.
To be clear here, that low level officials will abuse the legal process on rare occasions doesn't refute my overall claims, because I'm not claiming it's never happened that some angry police officer wrote a false write up or report or something. Of course it probably has. But those are extremely rare exceptions, so rare that even the (also rare) allegations about it tend to be not be true as we saw above with Raub. And even those are relegated pretty much entirely to small lower level official abuse in personal disputes.
Ken White and Nicholas Decker got the typical response that 99.9% or whatever of edgypushingthebar posting gets, nothing. Maybe a preliminary investigation (Decker mentioned having feds visit him) but nothing else.
No, noticing that the government did not do something that it happily did in other contexts.
As Greg Lukianoff, CEO of FIRE said about Larry Bushart
Larry Bushart spent 37 days in jail for posting a meme on Facebook.
Now, you not only claim people are being put into solitary confinement and forcibly drugged (as you said both "solitary confinement and involuntary medication" and then also "happily did in other contexts") over legal speech in the US, but that this is apparently not that uncommon. And yet the CEO of FIRE one of the largest 1st amendment free speech organizations around, who has actively worked in the field for 25 years doesn't know about that at all.
Do you have any proof for your claim, or are you just making shit up? Because it sure looks like you are lying.
Being happy that someone ended up dead is fundamentally different than supporting their death. Everyone here must understand that distinction, else Trump's comments on Mueller would be more than enough evidence to condemn "the right wing" on this.
Someone I want dead would be like, Putin. I've said before I hope Ukraine wins enough they can drone strike him or give him death sentence or something. Someone I would not care if they died and maybe even be a little cheerful for but don't support their death for would be like, Logan Paul.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
Again, this is you adhering to the letter of the law. You're not calling me a Nazi (you're only saying that I'm saying that I'm one.) But it amounts to the same thing. You would not dare say this to anyone in real life.
I absolutely would ask someone if they were a nazi if they said it was reasonable to call themselves a Nazi lol
There's been a minor news story recently after a teacher got well over a million bucks in settlement money, and there's a strong argument she shouldn't have gotten fired originally...
Government.
But what really gets me is the dog that doesn't bark. Nicholas Decker's "When Must We Kill Them" (answer: when he wanted the substack revenue) wasn't accompanied by an involuntary commitment and a warrant; PopeHat's complaining about a Bluesky ban rather than the solitary confinement and involuntary medication after he called for people to kill Musk.
Calls for government to do something.
Damore isn't independently wealthy; he got judges informing people the law required his speech be infringed.
Literally government.
William Kelly probably got his job back, and if he got anything else it was a rounding error, for 25 USD in Rittenhouse donations.
Government.
Notice something in common?
Why are you doing so specifically after you explicitly defended firing people for edgy jokes?
Private organizations are allowed to do that! Free speech is not the right to someone else's home or job offer! For example if someone tells you to leave their property cause you called their mom a whore, you get the fuck off their property. You have not been censored and your rights have not been violated, because you have no right to their property.
The first amendment is about government. If a private organization wants to trespass you for speech, they can. If they want to fire you for speech, they can. You do not have a right to seize and steal from others cause their response makes you feel sad about saying something.
What standard do you want to use that isn't demanding other private actors forfeit their freedoms?
What other standard do you intend to use then? "People said mean things to me that I didn't want to hear, therefore I feel censored"?
Sounds like that would be a bit ironic given the context.
If I say "lol would be so funny if I raped your mom" and you said 'fuck off cunt" and I go whining about how dark humor isn't allowed anymore, I'm just an idiot. Dark humor was allowed, it's just that mean responses back to me was also allowed. Rights to free speech (and accompanying it, rights to free association) do not belong just to me.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
There were lots of professionals posting under their real names
"Under their real name" is not the distinction unless you're like mid level management or more typically, above really. I personally wouldn't care if a fry cook is posting edgy memes on their own Facebook, just don't do it at work and don't share it on slack.
But some people do, and lots of them got fired as was their employer's right (if they were private sector).
And Young Republicans signal group is not a work-related chat.
Sure seems like it was given the number of higher up officials in the organization (and even including some politicians from my understanding?) in the group chat. It doesn't seem to be like fry cook John and night shift Henry share shit posts with each other on discord tier chatting, it seems to be something for the organization proper. That's the sort of thing I would fire many employees for, if they were sharing their edgy memes in "the company I work for" group chat that included the CEO and clients.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
This would be far more convincing of an argument if the only people making Kirk jokes were the left. But I know and have seen many people who aren't particularly political who have made jokes about him, in the same way I know plenty of people who aren't particularly political that talk about "goyslop". NYT even wrote an article on how it's just become zoomer slang. It's not just the anti Israel people making that joke, it's tons of normies who find it funny.
Unless all the kids these days are hardened antifa supersoldiers, there's gotta be another explanation for why so many normies have made and shared silly Kirk memes and that explanation is that they're shitposters who make fun of cringe and take on funny memes. And when you act cringy and don't behave seriously, you invite the shitposting.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
If a scorned woman nursing a personal vendetta against the man and his family is your idea of an "ally", you have no standards at all.
They were close before he died, she literally worked at his company for 7 years and only left a year before his death. They frequently appeared together. They were so close that again, people gossiped about whether or not they had an affair.
And I'd also like to point out once more that Tucker Carlson, the other example, spoke at Kirk's funeral. He was considered especially important, near par to the president given that they were both guest speakers. So even if you want to say Owens should not count because blah blah blah, Carlson definitely does. If he wasn't considered an ally, why was he there?
magicalkittycat
2d ago
Can you show me any dark humor joke that a person has been charged and convicted of in the US in the past 30 years? Dark humor is in fact allowed in the US. Let's go even further, 50 years. That's a pretty generous amount of time for modern day.
The only thing even like that is stuff like Larry Bushart being put in jail for a short period for a meme, and I've not contested nothing ever happens in any form ever never even from small government officials, but that it's rare and doesn't escalate into anything further. Even Greg Lukianoff, the CEO of FIRE called Bushart one of the most egregious examples he's ever seen, which shows both that Bushart like situations are rare and that further escalation doesn't happen. Because if it was common and not particularly extreme, then it wouldn't be an egregious example.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
And rather than ask for clarification or give me the benefit of the doubt (as any good faith argument would go for) you immediately jumped to calling me a Nazi.
We can actually check this, thankfully you even linked it. Let's see what I said.
I said
The very understandable reaction: "fuck it, you're calling me a Nazi, I might as well be one."
So are you saying you're a Nazi then? I guess add another on the pile of growing unashamed nazism.
"Rather than ask for clarification". Hmm, I wonder what "so are you saying you're a Nazi then?" is. Is that a question mark I see? It's literally an ask for clarification, because what I saw was "it's understandable reaction (to say) ... I might as well be (a Nazi)".
You either misread it (fair enough I misread too sometimes), are functionally illiterate, or are not being serious.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
Even more so as I constantly have to point out, there's a difference between professional conduct and private citizen conduct. A government employee shitposting in their private time is way different than shitposting on their official government accounts.
Political leadership, especially the president, is a 24/7 jobs. It's a job so important that it's even in some sense lifelong and we expect (or at least expected) even the former presidents to have some form of decorum about them. Bush takes it ultra seriously, beyond what I even think is necessary, and won't even comment about ongoing issues.
Anyone who seriously thinks low level small town government employee posting on their private accounts should be held to higher standards of etiquette than the president on his official accounts used for serious announcements has the world flipped on its head.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
I'm not fooling anyone, Did Sedan Hussein do 7/11 has over half a million views from just nine days ago. People are still doing dark humor.
And again, this would not be a thing if dark humor wasn't still real. One of the most egregious and awful child traffickers in modern history, and still a joke.
If that's what was intended then it's a misunderstanding. I took "I might as well be one" to mean an embrace of Nazism, given the surrounding context of Hitlerposting.
It's understandable that someone may say "I want to cut welfare and if you call that fascist, I don't care, I'm still for cutting welfare and I'll be your stupid version of fascist". But if not caring about it means talking about your belief in Agartha or something, then it looks a lot like just embracing the capital n Nazism instead. It's way less understandable if the response was "I want to cut welfare, and if you call that fascist then I'll gas the kikes too". The latter is negative polarization and not defensible logic.
If they meant the former and not the latter then fine, miscommunications happened. That's part of why I didn't even call them a Nazi to begin with, but asked for clarification cause the surrounding context was about Hitlerposting.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
We don't know they're fine with it
Well they said they are, so absent anything else I don't see why we should not believe them.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
You said
The very understandable reaction: "fuck it, you're calling me a Nazi, I might as well be one."
Do you still agree it's an understandable reaction to be a Nazi? I live in the world where I take your words as you say them.
Now maybe you were just joking and I misunderstood it, fair enough. Common autism thing after all, exacerbated by the internet. But the wording doesn't seem intended as humor.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
If you can't see that the memes about Kirk postmortem come from the desire to rile up the genuinely aggrieved right - that you stubbornly insist that the fig leaf is an burka - then there's no point to arguing with you. We simply don't share the same reality.
Yes I live in the world where the things I say mean the things I say, and you live in the world where you can just imagine stuff and it's as equally representative of me as my actual words. What meaningful conversation can be had then?
magicalkittycat
2d ago
Hogge's the lawyer, giving lawyer-speak for 'I can't even say I won'. Kelly got his job back, so he's not complaining and definitely not doing it somewhere where the department could get him fired for doing it, but there's no evidence he's come out of things with a million or even a hundred thousand bucks.
We don't know the circumstances, but obviously Kelly and his lawyer are fine with the outcome and didn't seek more. If they are fine with it, what's the complaint?
Party presentation rule, anyone?
The only real modern example I can think of where blatantly anti first amendment abuse of the criminal justice system happened would be James Comey, who wasn't convicted. It's an incredibly weak indictment that basically every legal expert expects to get thrown out.
Oh if you're saying the opposite and that dark humor isn't allowed anymore, then you're even more wrong. I see plenty of 9/11 jokes to this day, I see people constantly joking about suicide and self harm, and remember this whole thread is about how kids are joking about Kirk.
Or let's say, Epstein! Endless jokes about him, and he raped a bunch of children. I simply can't take the claim that dark humor isn't allowed anymore when Five Nights at Epstein's is a real game.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
My contention is, we're supposed to accept that unproven sexual allegations alone should be able to dictate political affairs, but not ask critical questions.
They're gonna dictate political affairs even if people don't believe them much because it tilts the scales.
Maybe you think X = 55 favorable and Y = 50 favorable, so you would vote X. However X now has a serious llegation against him that you think is 30% true, and a less serious allegation against him that you think is 70% true. Maybe the serious allegation at full is a -15 and the less serious is a -8. So X gets a -4.5 and a -5.6 respectively, putting them below Y and you now prefer Y.
It is perfectly reasonable that even not proven allegations if even somewhat evidenced will impact voters. And again, nothing would stop the Collins campaign from repeating these allegations. Nothing would stop the Collins campaign from repeating and finding other allegations either, as we know was part of their plan and why they're panicking now that Planter seems to be dropping out.
You say this sarcastically, but there are contexts where yes, the full moral responsibility of murder attaches for words. Ordering a minion (or, I suppose, a machine that takes text/voice input) to kill is generally considered murder or something that amounts to it (absent the usual affirmative defences).
And there's a reason why seriously ordering a hit would in fact be illegal in the US, whereas name calling is not. I'm one of the few people left who still taught my kids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones everyone else thinks mean words are super dangerous murder weapons. Of course they're constantly hypocritical over it too, I've never seen a person say "whoops, I accidently committed stochastic terrorism without intending to by speaking negatively about someone to my large audience". Weird how it's only ever applied to others the speaker doesn't like. Although hypocrisy is par for the course
Shit, that doesn't seem very consistent. Reading this thread, it seems like you think people "joking" about "dark shit" is a very serious problem, sufficient to make a long and highly-uncharitably framed post about it, provided it's your outgroup in the hotseat
Do you not understand the difference between teenagers shitposting on casual discord chats and on tiktok vs professionals posting in work related chats?
I would never accept this sort of dark humor from an employee, regardless of their age, while at work and in work related groups. They can do what they want in their own time, but they're getting talked to if they joked about 9/11 or Kirk on a work email. That is unacceptable. Kids making humorous Nazi memes is one thing vs professionals in a work related chat, they are different categories and I suspect you must work at a very low level position where no one takes your business communications seriously if you don't grasp this concept. If I had a 30 year old just start talking about their love for Hitler at work, no matter how levels of irony shitposting they want to claim they're being, they're gonna be written up if not fired.
Correct, the feeling was bullshit. It was a real feeling but that's because people are paranoid idiots.
along with a bouquet of similar quotes from your previous posts. And why shouldn't I? These are the arguments you choose to make, and the other Blues here choose to accept, are they not?
Oh no, you're going to correctly respond that worries over random lone wolf nutjob violence are hyperbolic, I'm so scared.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
It's so believable that dark humor jokes exist that this video is from even more than a decade ago. The internet making fun of your sacred cows is not some new phenomenon and wanting to be immune to it is again, just another form of cringe.
I think it’s a lot more ‘cringy’ to make memes about a widow trying to carry on in public life after her husband gets murdered in plain view. I don’t get seeing a public figure get murdered and thinking it’s odd people try to find good things to say about them.
Yeah and that's old fart behavior. People joke about 9/11, and suicides, and all sorts of other dark crap. Wanting to be immune to it is another form of cringe and invites even more jokes. This is part of why Kirk cringe snowballed, because getting upset at the youth's memes just make them meme harder.
It also makes 0 difference whether it was a lone wolf. You seem to forget that this was less than a year after the attempted assassination of Trump. There was a real feeling that a cycle of violence was beginning. Thankfully that did not come to pass,
Correct, the feeling was bullshit. It was a real feeling but that's because people are paranoid idiots.
Yes because it's far more efficient to go find a writeup than the whole opinion to find out if the claim is true or not. It is also not misleading, as Campbell's determination was made off of several factors. It was a poorly made decision, but the content of his speech doesn't seem to have been a deciding key element as I highlighted above.
Given that to the best of my knowledge they haven't committed any violence despite the length of time that has gone by, it definitely suggests their statements did not indicate serious intent to harm ala a true threat. Edgy words are not an automatic indicator someone isn't harmless, thus why we have such a high standard to begin with.
Schoolcraft was revenge on him for "betraying" the blue line, not just because they didn't like his opinions. He's not some random guy saying the police suck or something, they saw him as a traitor. It is not an example of speech being targeted, or at least a very atypical one.
Your first and main example of targeted speech was wrong.
More options
Context Copy link