Charlie Kirk.

It should worry people following Bondi's reasoning that the supreme court has already lain precedent outlining that what most would reasonably consider "hate speech" is protected via 1st amendment.
The ruling in the Matal V Tam case confirms that such speech is legally protected via the 1st amendment as "political speech".

Further difficulties for what might count as incitement and how the US might seek to limit that?
Are the quite strict guidelines as to what can be considered incitement that were lain out by SCOTUS in Brandenburg V Ohio.

Which basically restricts the definition of incitement to speech which immediately orders or directs specific actions. The famous summation below:

"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The efforts of media and political talking heads to constantly push the limits of their speech. To label, defame and honestly in many cases incite, particularly under the cover of religion and politics has created a monster that cannot be slain within the context of the 1st amendment, without amending what free speech means to America.

In Ireland, it's generally accepted that we have free speech within reasonable limits. That whilst we can generally share any opinions, where that opinion invites, defames or leads to harm, that there may be consequences.

Whereas Stateside, particularly since the revocation of the fairness doctrine and the rise of Limbaugh & other commentators.
Free speech is considered absolute and the best shorthand for the consideration given to the impact of any utterance?
Is best surmised by "Fúck your feelings"
The argument against incitement generally devolves to the the opinion that speech is protected, that anyone who acted as a result of such speech is acting within their own agency and the Speaker is not responsible.

The only way Bondi's recalibration of American Free speech could work?
Would be to label certain speakers and resultant actions as criminal conspiracy and prosecute via that route.

It is unworkable, impossible and it must be realised that without an acceptance that Free Speech as currently practiced stateside is a self defeating monster. It encourages extremism rather than engagement as a means of growing profile and noteriety.
The dawning realisation by Bondi that speech can have consequences?
Ignores the inflammatory rhetoric of her boss and most of the current GOP frontline.

To focus on nebulous threats such as Antifa, and Dems that called Trump a Nazi.

Introspection, honesty, engagement and genuine bipartisanship are needed, not Bondi & co trying to dominate a news cycle.

Wishing people dead is bad taste. Unless it's state-sanctioned, then it's fine.

His widow was all about they, they, they and how "they" have no idea what they have unleashed all across this country. Lol

Watch the MAGAt agenda unfold precipitously into orchestrated chaos.

What are you getting at, I've not seen much on this the last couple days but it seems his politics didn't lean right or far right at all

It was a poor attempt at killing him and escaping without a trace, walking through CCTV areas, leaving gun behind, using own car, texting about it, confessing to parents.

You could buy a realistic silicone mask for few hundred, wear sunglasses, wear gloves, don't leave gun, park car no where near, vanish into the day, dispose of gun and mask, never talk of it.

Deserved to get caught, he's braindead

Rumour he looked like a Palestinian kid so highly likely the Israelis would find a way to murder him in cold blood?

Why do you think he had one on?

Based on what has come out about the murder, he wasn't exactly planning this for a long time. Apparently, he'd heard a week prior that Kirk would be coming to that college to speak and so put together a fairly basic plan to go and shoot him. It would appear that he was a terminally-online 22 year old college dropout who could handle a rifle. Not exactly the Jackal.

Still, you do have to wonder how he didn't even anticipate how 'hot' the scene would be after killing Kirk, nor the amount of CCTV that would be around the place. Having said that, it's difficult to know how long-term he was thinking with all of this.

Pity his father in all of this, the family must be utterly devastated.

It's a suicide-prevention vest, they're not allowed to wear normal clothes in the suicide watch unit he's in.

Can't believe he thought he might have got away with it, perhaps he thought it would be suicide by cop which is why he didn't disguise himself so when that didn't happen he got carried away thinking 'maybe I have a real chance of getting away with this', which was extremely dumb obviously, because there was no chance whatsoever.

What could possibly be done to stop a seemingly trustworthy grown adult from accessing a hunting rifle that belongs to a family member? Its not like he went out and bought it. If a white male asks to borrow a gun from grandpa he should immediately call the police on him?