Charlie Kirk.

I wonder if the left is regretting weaponising "Free Speech does not mean Hate Speech" ?

This was your leading line though…are we in the "both sides" phase of all of this now?

AG Pam Bondi made a similar remark on TV' about free speech differing from hate speech. It's somewhat ironic given everything that MAGA has been saying for years.

FBI Director Kash Patel Senate hearing now. Livestream

Whereas you are bringing things into your own argument for it to make any sort of sense.

Alright.

They've had press interviews with Ted Bundy, Aileen Wuornos, Charles Manson and the Unabomber - Ted Kaczynski. I wonder if, after his conviction (I can only presume…) would there be a similar interview with this Robinson? It might be the only way to end the constant back and forth about his political affiliation and motives.

"Alleged" discrimination……If someone was deliberately failed from a class because of their political or social ideology, then of course that should be highlighted and abolished as a practice…….…But that's not what was happening, you've just invented that scenario out of thin air.

They weren't tracking 'discriminators', they were compiling a register of people that weren't sipping the kool-aid. It was a register of anyone teaching a class who any student (or parent, or fellow teacher, or podcaster) considered not right wing enough. From Charlie's own mouth:

"It’s no secret that some of America’s college professors are totally out of line” and that he often hears stories about “professors who attack and target conservatives, promote liberal propaganda and use their position of power to advance liberal agendas in their classroom. Turning Point USA is saying enough is enough. It’s time we expose these professors.”

Expose them for what? Their right to teach a class as they see fit (AKA exercising their first amendment rights)? You'll also notice that the word 'discriminate' doesn't appear there once, further proof that your scenario is all in your own head.

Firstly, It is not up to anyone to determine what, or how, anything is taught..if you don't like what is being said, go somewhere else instead of trying to curtail their right to say it.

Secondly, teaching and eschewing liberal views is not 'discrimination' in any sense of the word…was Charlie discriminating against anyone when he was pushing his own right-wing agenda?

Thirdly, trying to stifle what is being said or taught is absolutely anti-free speech.

Lastly, keeping a register of naysayers is straight out of the Nazi playbook, hence why some people are up in arms because of it.

But this is all besides the point….bottom line is auld Charlie wasn't happy with what some people were saying so he set up a website that, whether deliberately or not, intimidated those folks for speaking freely. That is not something a free speech absolutist would do. Free speech for me, none for thee. You can keep arguing the toss all you want, anyone with half a brain can see that he was talking out of his hole when he said he was all for free speech.

I mean, imagine the arrogance of walking into a college lecture and going "that's wrong, I didn't come here to learn that, I want the lecturer to conform to my own political ideology and reaffirm my own long-held beliefs…...I hope there's a website somewhere that I can 'expose' them.

They have always been about freedom of their speech only. And Kirk, Vance et al have been part of an elaborate performance.

Similarly its thoughts and prayers when children get killed by a mass shooter or a democratic politician gets assassinated. But its war on "them" when its one of their own

No, I was responding to another poster actually, and you go on one and then refuse to answer a question because it's safer place to be.

"Alleged" discrimination……If someone was deliberately failed from a class because of their political or social ideology, then of course that should be highlighted and abolished as a practice

No allegation about it, this has happened. Numerous examples of teachers, professors and institutions going too far.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-a-student-got-kicked-out-of-class-and-became-a-conservative-hero

https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/texas-a-m-university-fires-professor-political-pressure-gender-identity-children-literature-class-education/

https://www.foxnews.com/us/family-claims-school-expelled-student-over-conservative-views

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/21/charlottesville-fallout-student-says-he-was-kicked-out-college-participating

https://consent.yahoo.com/v2/collectConsent?sessionId=3_cc-session_0185db50-aaef-46a1-a30e-c4c6f38f2e33

None of these examples of discrimination is allowed to happen because of free speech.

Antifa is defined as groups affiliated by their militant opposition to fascism.

I haven`t seen any militant groups in the U.S. other than those of the extreme right. Many of them more militarily than militant, so perhaps you would be good enough to point out who these groups are that you see as being organized in a militant manner to oppose fascism.

Way to ignore the meat and bones of everything I posted. And tell the truth, you never heard about any of those cases……you just googled "conservative expelled for conservative views" as a form of gish-galloping to distract away from the fact that your point has been shown to be a load of nonsense. Here it is again, in simple English……Teaching something that does not conform to your own reality is not discriminating against you.

Anyway,

Example 1: Professor was fired, as I said he should be………no need to add him to any website. Example invalid.

Example 2: Claim made by parents. Disputed by the school…."This student was given a number of chances to adhere to our expectations and the rules and code of conduct of Cheshire Academy……Contrary to what you may have read, our decision was not based on an opposition to political dialogue" and "Michael Mancini was expelled from the school after his father launched a website detailing his son's treatment following the classroom incident, according to the suit."………so not expelled or discriminated against based on political views, but because his auldfella is a bell-end. Example invalid.

Example 3: Claim made by student. No confirmation from educational authority. Story is about attending a white supremacist rally, nothing to do with espousing political ideologies in class (I assumed this didn't need to be said, apparently not). In order to objectively show he was discriminated against, you'd need to show an example of a liberal student who showed up to the same rally, wearing the same flag, who wasn't expelled. Example invalid.

Example 4: Doesn't exist, link broken. Example invalid.

So, you've given 4 examples that you literally just googled; one of them backs up my position on the matter, one of them is a failed attempt to link a yahoo story and the other two don't pass the sniff test. You're gonna need better examples, I'm afraid, of someone being discriminated against based on their political views before you can justify the "all Jews need to register" register, I'm afraid.

None of these examples of discrimination is allowed to happen because of free speech.

This sentence doesn't make any sense. What discrimination?

fairly sure you didn't read past the headline on most of them.

Really?

Are you in favour of passing the previous incarnation of Hate Speech laws in Ireland?

The broad left has have had a very serious issue with speech over the past decade or more. They, in the main, want to clamp down on anything they deem as hate speech.