r/Humanitydool:

u/xander707

Again, it’s not saying something negative about Charlie, it is laughing that a guy was assassinated for standing up for what he believed in. How do you still not understand the difference, you don’t have to like him, you don’t have to care that he died, you just shouldn’t laugh at him because that shows a lack of morals. Respectfully, this has nothing to do with constitutional rights. You keep making these childish emotional arguments. Nothing in the constitution says you cant laugh at an assassination. In fact it quite explicitly says you have the freedom of speech to do so. You dont have to like it and it can make you really sad and angry. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand which about how Americans, including service members, have the freedom to express themselves even if it hurts your feelings. It has ZERO to do with morality. You are the one who doesnt understand what I am saying, or what this discussion is even truly about.
u/xander707

Most people outside of the terminally online had no idea who tf Charlie even was until he took a bullet. Chill on the canonization, good grief. but there are limits on what soldiers can say revolving politics too, they’re supposed to be nonpartisan. Charlie isnt a politician. YouTube influencers dont get special treatment. Military service members are forbidden from promoting a specific political candidate or party. They can express personal views on individuals, even political officials and candidates, as long as it doesnt appear as an endorsement of their politics and cant be misconstrued to be representative of the militarys views. But if you really think they shouldnt be allowed to say something negative about Kirk because hes such a big political figure, that would swing both ways and mean that service members offering condolences or sharing any other kind of positive comments about Charlie Kirk are engaging in prohibited political endorsement actions and should likewise be discharged immediately. Is that the route you are really advocating for? Finally, most people are not cheering for his death. There is some of that, but its a very small amount. Most are just pointing out that he sucked and his death is either ironic, funny, or worthy of zero empathy. Like I said already, anyone who is explicitly endorsing the illegal act of assassination/murder itself, would likely not get 1st amendment protection. Anything else is fair game.
u/xander707

A severe breach of moral and professional conduct. Lmao hurting MAGA feelings by not crying over their edgelords death is not a breach. Sorry but this argument would never hold up in a 1st amendment court case, period. The only way you could legitimately discharge a military or government employee for speech surrounding Kirk is if they directly supported or encouraged the assassination. If thats what you mean, then you could be right. Saying that they dont feel bad about Charlie Kirk dying, wouldnt apply. Saying that Charlie Kirk was a total pos with abhorrent views, wouldnt apply. Making jokes about how dumb he looked or sounded in his final moments, wouldnt apply. But saying something like I think more American citizens should meet the same fate or something of that nature, might be actionable. But given this pettiness and vengeful nature of this administration, Im betting on a bunch of 1st amendment violations due solely to hurt feelings, which the 1st amendment protects against.
u/xander707

Because the phrases he wrote on the bullets are linked to groyper shitposting/slang. If you read this, you are gay LMAO is also not something a left wing person would typically say, but more than that it makes anyone making serious arguments about the shitposts look pretty foolish. This was not someone who was making serious political proclamations, thats pretty obvious. You are right that just because he was raised in a conservative household doesnt mean he was necessarily conservative himself, however it does make it statistically much more likely. I think we are dealing with a person who as terminally online and radicalized by online spaces like 4chan and possibly Nick Fuentes groyper culture.
u/xander707

Thanks for the link. I know you dont want to waste your time, but I challenge anyone else to read through that link and pick any example that would apply to making negative comments about Charlie Kirk. Almost every example in there deals with a dispute or speech directly between the employee regarding their employer or coworkers. Nothing in there indicates a power granted to the government to censor or punish speech regarding individuals outside of the workspace, such as YouTube influencers. Also for clarification, I am concerned about those making negative comments or making jokes about Kirks death having their rights violated. Anyone who is specifically and explicitly endorsing the illegal act of assassinating or murdering someone, would likely not be protected. Although interestingly enough, there is an example in the link where someone did exactly that, regarding making comments about wanting the president to be successfully assassinated, and the court ruled it protected speech because they only said it to a coworker and not the public.
u/xander707

Public officials don’t have the same first amendment protections. Beyond that, speech related to their responsibilities is not protected by the first amendment at all. Entirely wrong. Public officials have exactly the same first amendment protections, the only exceptions being some limitations regarding the scope of their official duties. There is no situation where they have no first amendment protections at all except specifically regarding speech that is not protected by the 1st amendment regardless of job title. Sharing their personal views outside of official duties, on social media, is protected via the first amendment assuming it is protected speech and not legally identifiable as discrimination or advocating violence etc.
u/xander707

Thats usually how coming to an agreement works. Remember to let others know its ok to say The shooter was aiming for center mass but the gravitational pull of Charlie Kirks head changed the bullets trajectory. Just make sure you do your duty and let them know they cant endorse the assassination itself. Thats a big no-no.
u/xander707

Right and hey, if the government is only cutting the service members who are explicitly calling for assassinations/murder, that would be ok and legal. My only concern are the service members who say Charlie Kirk lost the gun debate by a long shot lmao getting their constitutional rights violated and illegally discharged. I am glad that we finally came to agreement on this matter.
u/xander707

Then it sounds like you are agreeing with me now. As I said, if they are specifically endorsing/encouraging the illegal act of assassination or murder itself, thats not going to be protected. Im only saying that if they say something like Seeing Charlie Kirk shooting a geyser of blood out of his throat helped me overcome my insomnia and sleep better at night, that would be protected speech. Right?
u/xander707

Once again, missing the point entirely. This discussion is about the fact that acting service members who get discharged in response to insensitive comments about Charlie Kirks death will have a clear and easy path to successfully sue the government on 1st amendment grounds, and people like you and me will pay the cost. Your morality argument is not at play here. Governors, congresspeople, and Trump himself, have made insensitive comments regarding democratic deaths and they all kept their jobs. That was a terrible point to make, as well as being pointless. Governors cant even be fired, its an elected position and therefore requires impeachment or recall, both political processes.