Tyler Robinson’s attorney is in court arguing Kirk’s murder is justified because Kirk engaged in what he refers to as “hate speech.” This is a pattern we have been seeing for awhile- the youth of today have been taught that objectional speech is violence that justifies a physically violent response, including deadly force. To quote him:
some hatred can’t be negotiated out… It is true that Mr. Kirk spoke hatefully of certain groups of people…he spoke hatefully of people who have sexual relationships outside of marriage
The left is now declaring anyone who utters words in opposition to their beliefs is committing violence, and deserves to be killed. We are so close to a civil war in this nation, it is frightening.
First, it was young people saying that the First Amendment protection of speech doesn’t apply to anything “hateful.” The bar is low, because even disputing the results of an election isn’t protected speech.
Now we are at “Chud the Builder deserves to have his ass kicked for saying things I don’t like, and if he defends himself from that violent beating he should go to jail,” and “I can murder you if you say things contrary to my beliefs.“
7 Comments
Kentucky Headhunter · September 2, 2026 at 8:46 am
“It is true that Mr. Kirk spoke hatefully…”
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence or whatever. Has that been ruled upon already. That his speech was hateful? Sez who?
Lawyer admits that is was “murder”? Isn’t murder against the law? ASKING FOR A FRIEND.
Joe Blow · September 2, 2026 at 9:56 am
I forget who said it, but ‘Free Speech’ includes things you do not want to hear. They are commies, total and absolute. People need to grok that it really is us or them. Not because of us, but because of them. They will accept nothing less than total control and subjugation (elimination for you’s and me).
Divemedic · September 2, 2026 at 12:29 pm
If I said chocolate chip cookies are delicious, or puppies are cute, no Constitutional protections are needed because those statements are not things the vast majority provide objectionable. No, the speech needing protection is the speech that many or even most people find abhorrent. For in protecting one person’s ability to say that which is offensive to some, we protect the right for all of us to say that which others would outlaw.
lynn · September 2, 2026 at 3:02 pm
If it is ok to start murdering people because of their speech, I know of a few people with a very long list.
https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/bracken-what-i-saw-at-the-coup.74830/
Xzebek · September 3, 2026 at 12:23 am
I’m fine with their rules as long as the shooting gallery goes both ways. If we are abandoning the law then let our respective armies meet in the streets and resolve this, as Bill the Butcher said, “for good and all”.
Joe Blow · September 3, 2026 at 5:58 am
It’s an interesting legal theory… admitting your client committed the crime, but that it was justified. Reckon the physical evidence is over-whelming then, and they’re looking to get reduced sentence plea or something?
hh475 · September 3, 2026 at 8:37 am
I lecture occasionally about cognitive bias in forensic science. Some months ago, I was in a workshop with some lawyers and we discussed how we forensic science types and lawyer types approached presenting stuff at trial. We, as scientists, are supposed to remove bias as much as possible, and both derive and present our opinions under strict constraints. In contrast, the lawyers see their job as trying to *introduce* as much bias as possible in order to get the jury to think in ways supportive of their side. Never forget that a trial is, first and foremost, theater.
A few weeks go I was in trial presenting an opinion. Counsel for the opposing side wanted to attack me for presenting a similar opinion in a very high profile, politically charged case. He told the judge that because I was consistent in my theory of how injury happens in this particular kind of case, that represented “bias” and that he should be able to present it as such to the jury even though simply mentioning the name of the trial would sway the jury one way or the other more than the facts of the current trial would do so. Interestingly, both the judge and counsel agreed that merely being consistent in my opinion between trials constituted “bias” — because an “unbiased” person would have changed his or her opinion based on the jury’s determination rather than the underlying science.
Thus, the fact that I disagreed with the finding of the jury in a previous trial meant that I was “biased” in this one — and that it was OK for me to be attacked on that basis rather than the scientific basis of my opinion. The only thing that stopped it was that eventually the judge decided that mentioning the name of the case would be so prejudicial that it overcame the probative benefit of pointing out that “bias.”
In another trial, counsel attacked me as “not believing in rape” because of something I wrote criticizing the statistical analysis in an article by another author that made the claim that only 2-5% of rape accusations are false. My analysis was not in question — merely the fact that I did it. And the judge didn’t have a problem with that attack.
I have mixed feelings about how trials are run in the US. The down side is that they are, as I wrote above, often more about theater than fact. On the other hand, I don’t know how one could make it better without introducing even more bias — strict gatekeeping merely introduces the bias of the gatekeepers sometimes. The thing I have been consistently impressed with, however, is how seriously juries take their jobs. Sure, every juror brings in his or her own biases and prejudice, and that is often reflected. But they do the best they can. My biggest problem is that they often try to choose a middle ground and compromise, which means that innocent people are convicted of lesser charges when they should have been determined to be not guilty, and some monsters get off easier than they should have.
Comments are closed.