While many media outlets are attempting to regain balance and to appeal to a broader audience, the New York Times is clearly not one of them. The newspaper is doubling down on the denials and deflections on the left after the latest political assassination. The newspaper is under attack for featuring the work of Hasan Piker, a writer who has called Jews “inbred pigs,” declared that the United States “deserved” 9-11, and screamed about killing capitalists.
The timing of the Piker column could not have been worse.
Just before the anniversary of the Cotton controversy, the New York Times published a column by University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was given a promotion by the University of Rhode Island after his remarks). While Loomis’ column was not on such violence, it stood in glaring contradiction to the newspaper’s pledge not to run Cotton’s editorials.
The New York Times is undeterred because its readers seem to value the very hypocrisy revealed in these controversies. They can rely on the Times to offer spins and deflections to relieve them of any self-examination after tragedies like the Kirk assassination.
I continue to oppose the censorship of individuals who, like Piker, espouse hateful views. Despite my friendship with Charlie, I have pushed back on calls to crackdown on anyone celebrating his murder (though there are cases where free speech is not a barrier to such action). However, the hypocrisy at the New York Times featuring such figures as Piker while barring others like Sen. Cotton is breathtaking.
The New York Times once represented the gold standard of journalism. The current editors and journalists have destroyed that legacy built on Adolph S. Ochs pledge to run “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” Today it seems like the “Old Gray Lady” is offering more a “fit” than news.
I think people here need to learn about a group called ‘black pill accelerationists’. If you were shocked by George Zinn saying he falsely took credit for shooting Kirk because he wanted to give the real shooter time to get away, then know that this is the kind of thing they do. And the kind of thing that the shooter did. If you google accelerationism, that’s a good start. But know that the MSM is trying to make this group out to be far right-wing MAGA, to tie MAGA to it. No. MAGA believes in law and order and that our institutions can be saved. The accelerationists believe neither, so let’s go out with an action movie bang to end of all action.
Rabble:
Some have done some looking into Zinn. Apparently, he was in NYC the day the towers fell, and knew, the instant it happened, that it was Al Qaeda. There are interviews with him saying as such.
He also called in a false bomb threat in Boston around the time of the Marathon bombing.
It’s a pretty infinitesimal chance one man would be at all three events.
Aimeslee,
Actually, “Black Pill Accelerationists” isn’t a group, per se, but a melding of two Internet sub-cultures. Here’s what ChatGPT says about it:
— Chat GPT Overview —
The phrase **“black pill accelerationists”** combines two separate but related internet subcultures:
—
## 1. The “Black Pill”
* **Origin**: Evolved out of the “red pill” metaphor popularized by *The Matrix* and later co-opted by various online communities.
* **Meaning**: Where “red pill” implies awakening to hidden truths, the “black pill” suggests a **pessimistic worldview**—believing society, politics, or personal life is hopelessly corrupted or doomed.
* **Usage**: In different online spaces, “black-pilled” people tend to emphasize despair, nihilism, or inevitability (e.g., “nothing will get better”).
—
## 2. “Accelerationism”
* **General Idea**: The belief that instead of resisting harmful trends (political, economic, or social), one should **push them to extremes** so the system collapses more quickly.
* **Variants**:
* **Left-wing accelerationism**: Push capitalism’s contradictions to bring about revolution.
* **Right-wing/far-right accelerationism**: Push instability to create collapse and authoritarian replacement.
—
## 3. Combined: “Black Pill Accelerationists”
* This phrase is typically used online (not a formal organization) to describe people who:
* Believe society is beyond saving (“black pill”).
* Think the only way forward is to **intensify chaos, decline, or collapse** (“accelerationism”).
* **Connotation**: Often associated with fringe, extremist internet communities. Some versions of this thinking have been tied to dangerous rhetoric, particularly in extremist political or violent contexts.
—
✅ **Important note**: Most mainstream discussions reject or condemn this worldview, since it leans toward nihilism and in some cases encourages destructive behavior.
Something is wrong with this case.
Columbo
Dennis McIntyre posted: “Jonathan: The assassination of Charlie Kirk has come at a convenient time for DJT. He desperately wants the Epstein file scandal to go away”
Dennis, you posted that deflection in hopes that ALL of President AutoPen’s crime family felony scandals have gone away. Is that why you didn’t give your Breaking News segment this morning about JRB? Here, let me help you with today’s Breaking News.
Newly Released FBI Files Show Further Biden Bribery
Recently declassified Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documents, made public by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), reveal allegations of a foreign bribery plot involving Hunter Biden, former President Joe Biden, and Ukraine’s Burisma Holdings. The files, containing interviews from 2017 and 2019, claim that Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, attempted to bribe then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko with $100 million to stop an Interpol investigation. The money allegedly moved through a Latvian shell company linked to the Bidens.
According to the documents, Joe Biden met with Poroshenko to safeguard his son’s interests and those of Zlochevsky, who reportedly paid Hunter Biden around $1 million per year for his position on Burisma’s board from 2014 to 2019. The files further suggest that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officers intervened to block investigations into Zlochevsky, with support from elements of the U.S. intelligence community.
During a Senate hearing, Grassley stressed that the FBI has not confirmed whether these allegations were properly investigated. “In total, we now have four different FBI confidential human sources providing information about the Biden family and potential criminal conduct,” he said, adding, “Let’s put this matter to rest, one way or the other.”
The documents also tie Hunter Biden’s associates, Devon Archer and Chris Heinz, to a larger money laundering operation involving Russian and Ukrainian officials. A 2019 FBI informant report alleged that Russian intelligence sought to “penetrate the American Elite,” while a 2020 file claimed Zlochevsky paid Joe and Hunter Biden $5 million each to shield Burisma from corruption investigations.
Grassley, alongside Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), released these files to highlight potential misconduct and push for transparency from federal agencies. The Biden family has not issued a statement, and neither the FBI nor the CIA has responded to requests for comment.
If there had been evidence against Trump only, Biden/Harris would have used it.
They didn’t.
There must be evidence implicating other politicians and/or luminaries.
These libs are insane. They love death,
NOW: Crowd outside of Courthouse cheer and hug as it’s announced that terrorism charges against Luigi Mangione have been dropped
“Despite my friendship with Charlie, I have pushed back on calls to crackdown on anyone celebrating his murder (though there are cases where free speech is not a barrier to such action).”
‘I was a friend of Charlie, but….’ Oh, where else have we heard that “but…” since his murder? You’re either flat out wrong – or waffling, hoping somebody will reward you with syrup to go with your waffles.
I am a small business employer. If my customers tell me one of my employees is all over social media calling for Democrat political activists and organizers to be murdered, you want to “push back” on me because I terminate any employee that damages my business like that?
If somebody whose social media identifies them as working in the Secret Service or US military is posting all over social media that somebody needs to give Professor Turley the Charlie Kirk treatment at his next public event because he’s a traitor to the cause, the government shouldn’t have the right to terminate that employee?
That’s within the code of conduct for those collecting a taxpayer paycheck in exchange for government employment? Within the code of conduct for state entities that license lawyers like yourself, doctors, etc?
Have you ever considered you also protect free speech by publicly approving and endorsing sanctions applied when vile, defamatory, evil, etc speech does not have the shield of the First Amendment? As in when it violates employee code of conduct and professional codes of conduct?
Trying to be willfully blind or waffling in instances like that does lead the nation to support free speech even stronger. It does the opposite.
The problem is with the weasel words used by Professor Turley. What does “pushed back” mean? What does “cracked down” mean? What does “speak out against Charlie Kirk” mean?
Because of the weasel words, his terminology could mean that Turley has denounced attempts to answer people vile enough to spit on Kirk’s grave and in his widow’s face. That kind of “push back” would be ridiculous. But it’s possible under Turley’s wording.
But if “pushed back” means disagree with attempts to jail people for stating a reasoned argument against Kirk’s position, that kind of push back is entirely appropriate.
It seems to me that the professor doesn’t want any work-related consequences for people vile and evil enough to cheer and celebrate this most cowardly and sinister assassination. I totally agree with you that such consequences are appropriate (and they don’t violate the First Amendment). As I said once before, such a person has no place in public employment, and if a private employer wants to terminate them for business reasons, that is totally understandable and encouraged. I would not want such a vile person associated with my business.
Jonathan: The assassination of Charlie Kirk has come at a convenient time for DJT. He desperately wants the Epstein file scandal to go away so he is using Kirk’s killing to deflect–claiming falsely that Tyler Robinson was “radicalized” by transgenders, the “left” and the Democratic party. Fox News, where you work, has echoed these claims almost every day.
So now you attack the NY Times for publishing articles critical of Charlie Kirk. The Q is whether Kirk was, in fact, a racist. . In Dec. 2023 at a TP conference Kirk said this: “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s” and the CRA led to a “permanent DEI-type bureaucracy” Kirk also said MLK was an “awful” person. Was Kirk also an antisemite? After the Oct. 7 attack on Israel in 2023, Kirk argued in an Oct. 26 podcast that “Jewish donors have a lot of explaining to do…Because Jewish donors have been the No 1 funding mechanism of radical, open border neoliberal quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits. This is the beast created by secular Jews…Some of the largest financiers of leftwing, anti-White causes have been Jewish Americans”. Blaming the Jews for the downfall of white America was a major theme of Kirk’s speeches. Antisemitism was also a theme of Hitler in his attacks on German Jews!
And DJT is trying to use Kirk’s death to attack the press. Yesterday DJT filed yet another defamation lawsuit against the NY Times and four of its reporters for $15 billion because the paper published books and articles critical of DJT. Nothing new for DJT. Last year DJT had filed another defamation suit against the paper but it was dismissed under NY’s anti-SLAPP statute. DJT was forced to pay the Times $392,638 in legal fees. This time DJT sued in Florida that also has an anti-SLAPP law. The Times has two options. They could immediately file for dismissal under Florida’s law. Or, they could respond with a general denial and ask for immediate discovery and schedule DJT’s deposition. DJT couldn’t refuse to sit down for a deposition claiming presidential “immunity” because he filed his lawsuit as a private citizen and claims his businesses lost money as a result of Times articles. I seriously doubt DJT would want to testify under oath about his business finances or whether his signature on the Epstein 50th birthday card was actually his. Could prove very revealing and embarrassing!
^ Chinese Communist Party paid troll. CCP is trying to divide America. Ignore. ^
Trump has been whoring Charlie Kirk’s death to it’s fullest extent possible to avoid further scrutiny of the Epstein files.
^ DNC Paid Troll. Ignore. DNC is scraping the bottom of the barrel for this one. ^
Dennis McIntyre posted: “claiming falsely that Tyler Robinson was “radicalized” by transgenders, the “left” and the Democratic party. Fox News, where you work, has echoed these claims almost every day.”
Dennis, is CNN lying, telling you that Robinson DIDN’T have the Democrats Biden/Antifa “anti-fascist” and Tranny revolution messaging written on the ammunition in his murder weapon? That Robinson WASN’T bedding his Tranny lover and a regular participant at dark themed Tranny forums?
And the murder victim, Kirk, was actually an anti-Semitic? Like Trump – who you still continue to lie said neo-Nazis were “very fine people”?
Have you EVER attempted to defame the murder victim, Kirk, with the full transcript of what he said accompanying your lies – the act of an honest man would be to include the full context of what was said, rather than cherrypick or make up one or two lines?
Dennis: don’t change a single thing about your chosen tactics and strategy of winning by lies and defamation in the time between now and the mid-term and then next presidential election. It worked so well in the election last November that, surely like communism, you will get it right the next time!
Dennis posted: “I seriously doubt DJT would want to testify under oath about his business finances or whether his signature on the Epstein 50th birthday card was actually his.”
I seriously doubt you would want to testify under oath about anything you defame Trump, Professor Turley, or anyone else with. But Dennis: as the man of Breaking News and skilled commentator on Trump and the legal system:
“Georgia Supreme Court rejects Fani Willis’ bid to prosecute Trump”
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/georgia-supreme-court-rejects-fani-willis-bid-prosecute-trump
How many times here, day after day, did you say Fani Willis already had Trump fitted out for a Hillary Clinton styled orange jumpsuit?
Really?…you want a federal case brought based on a birthday card? Have you considered getting professional help? I never dreamed such private correspondence between friends could become grounds for prosecution. Are you serious?
Anonymous,
Hey, birthday card signatures and bullets are all the left has left.
Patel crushed Schiff.
If there had been evidence against Trump only, Biden/Harris would have used it.
They didn’t.
There must be evidence implicating other politicians and/or luminaries.
Nothing you have asserted leads directly to your conclusions.
Parts of the CRA are unconstitutional and SCOTUS should have rejected it.
Holding views you do not like is not Racist.
Your failed Argument is that Kirks remarks are racist. They are not.
What you did NOT do is try to argue that Kirk was wrong.
I find it Hillarious that someone who supports Hamas is criticising Kirk for less than unconditional support for Israel.
Jewish political Donors do have something to answer for – their support of some horrible democrats and worse polices. Kirk did not criticise them for being jewish but for their funding choices which advance bad policies.
The Q is not whether Kirk is racist – all of us tend to prefer our own race.
Kirk is NOT however using FORCE to target blacks or any other race for acting within their rights.
He has however repeatedly targeted the stupidity of giving positions to people because of their race or sex.
NYT will get its day in court. If what it has published is truthful it will have little problems.
If it was lies as Trump beleives – it could owe Billions.
Personally, I would dismiss the lawsuit – not because NYT has not defamed Trump.
But because the way to respond to defamation is to “Prove Me Wrong” in the market place of ideas.
I am not a fan of defamation lawsuits. petitions prior to any discovery.
With respect to your legal claims – there will be myriads of motions before any discovery.
Discovery against NYT will be broad. Discovery with respect to Trump will be narrow – limited to the truth of the of the alleged defamatory statements, and the extent to which Trump was damaged.
It is difficult to believe that you made so many mistakes in three paragraphs. Apparently, you think each mistake cancels the other out, so you load up on them.
Try arguing each claim individually. You can’t, and you proved that.
Piker was supposed to debate Charlie Kirk in the NYT. It’s vile that they would now print one side of the debate when Charlie can’t respond.
KiKi
Charlie’s response is voluminous even more so now!
The Democrat party candidate for Attorney General of Ohio said “F— Charlie Kirk” in the wake of Kirk being assassinated. His name is Elliot Forhan.
Kirk, as everyone knows, was involved in open dialogue with people who disagreed with him, as his signature issue was freedom of speech and the need to encourage dialogue rather than violence or tyranny. Forhan goes on to slander Kirk with blatant lies, saying that Kirk favored tyranny over democracy and open dialogue.
The Left is a death cult. It’s members are mentally ill. There can be no unity with evil. There can be no reconciliation with evil. There can be no amnesty for evil absent a genuine confession of error and repentance. What appears on the surface as left-versus-right is in fact good-versus evil, light-versus-darkness. Any number of trolls can come on here and insult me or yell at me for saying that, but it’s the truth and I will never back down from it.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-erupts-dem-running-attorney-general-red-state-over-profanity-laced-charlie-kirk-post
Old Man,
What can you expect from a party who, over the last 50 years, has killed 10.83 times more people, via abortion, than the Nazis killed in the concentration camps? Hitler wanted a “master race”, they want “convenience” — both equally repugnant.
Ron – true. And here’s even more evidence of the death cult: today they’re cheering for Luigi Mangione, whom they’ve made a folk hero for murdering an unarmed man in cold blood. Which may have helped incentivize Charlie Kirk’s assassin to follow through on his own murderous thoughts and plans.
https://x.com/ScooterCasterNY/status/1967947416465969391
Old Man,
And now that terrorism charges have been dropped, the left will be even more emboldened, and all bets are off.
And given how corrupt the NYC judicial system is, including its jury pool, we could see jury nullification him walking free. Then it will be open season for murderers everywhere.
The feds will prosecute.
That had to have been a purchased crowd.
You can’t fix stupid. You can’t fix communist. They don’t want to endeavor, “pursue happiness,” or work. They simply want other people’s money and other people’s positions—”free stuff” and “free status.” They must be informed that they are wrong and in violation of statutory and fundamental law. The New York Times was rubbish over 50 years ago, and the New York Times is exponentially rubbisher today. These clowns are an offshoot of Karl Marx, who was a psychotic, drunken invalid who decided for all of humanity that people should not “make money”; they should simply “take money.” “The Big Lie”—People could be induced to believe so colossal a lie because they would not believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” That’s the New York Times.
I think we All know the cure for Communism.
Yes!
The Supreme Court must declare it all unconstitutional at every point, at every juncture, and at every imposition.
Start with each sequential historical nullification of absolute private property.
To wit,
“The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.”
– Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
The comparison between Kirk and Piker can be quite revealing. One thing that you’ll notice is that Kirk’s detractors always seem to denounce him in the abstract, while people denouncing Piker point to specific sources. (and then even when they do quote Kirk, it seems that they’re like Stephen King quoting him completely out of context when his point was exactly the opposite of how they’re trying to portray him)
I’ve watched some of Kirk’s video after his political assassination and didn’t hear anything that warranted his death.
The kirk assassination may have been a study in triggering the left at the wrong target. Kirk is a tool. If the trigger images are known then it can be done.
“Jan 6, 2021 was more than 3 people…” : Whataboutism in all its glory.
Where did I miss the references to J6 in the story? And if January 6 2021 is whataboutism, is your attempt to bring that into the conversation a comparison to the 36 hour assault on the White House a few weeks earlier, with Trump and his family inside? Context and nuance are important in adult rational discussion, correct?
Was that assault and attempt to murder Trump in the White House, carried out by Antifa and Black Lives Matter street revolutionaries, a group of more than three people?
“Jan 6, 2021 was more than 3 people…”
and actually included many paid agitators, antifa in Trump-drag, Biden FBI and CIA Ray Epps forward-plants in MAGA hats, plenty of undercover actors and agents. Bidens government hoodlums perpetrated violent pre-dawn raids, arrested peaceful pastors, veterans, grandmothers and grandfathers, to establish a deadly and long-lived counter-narrative.
I agree, the Biden’s J-6 regime executed “whataboutism” in all its glory.
The New York times = Politburo.
Politburo = A chief committee (disseminating information and policies) for the Communist cause.
Right you are Dianna Bec,, however it must be pointed out that their propaganda is all perfectly legal under the law now. At least since Obama fundamentally trans-formed America.
News
“Sen. Lee Seeks to Revive 1948 Law Against Domestic ‘Propaganda’ Repealed in 2013”
–Jacob Adams | September 15, 2025
Excerpts:
“Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, is calling on Congress to pass the Charlie Kirk Act, which would restrict the broadcasting of federally funded programming intended for foreign audiences within America’s borders.”
“The Utah senator posted on the social media platform X on Sunday, declaring, “Domestic, political, government-funded propaganda must end now,” and explaining that he would be reintroducing legislation intended to restore the original Smith-Mundt Act, renamed in honor of Charlie Kirk, the conservative leader who was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10.”
“The Smith-Mundt Act referenced in the Utah senator’s post was also known as the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948. For more than six decades prior to 2013, it prohibited the dissemination of material intended for foreign audiences to the domestic population of the United States from certain U.S. government-funded media organizations.”
“That prohibition was repealed in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013. That allowed what critics described as U.S. government-funded propaganda to be broadcast within America’s borders. One of the justifications for the legislative change was the reputed need to combat al-Qaeda propaganda targeting those living in the United States.”
“The Smith-Mundt Act originally forbade the federal government from propagandizing American citizens with reporting intended for foreign audiences, a protection that was eliminated under Barack Obama in 2013. The Charlie Kirk Act restores this safeguard against government propaganda under the name of that martyr for free speech and champion of freedom, mourned by millions of Americans,” Lee told The Daily Signal.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/09/15/sen-mike-lee-introduce-charlie-kirk-act/
——————————————–
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
Eric Hoffer ‘The True Believer’
I’ll quote from Wikipedia,
‘Part 1 The Appeal of Mass Movements’: “Hoffer states that mass movements begin with a widespread “desire for change” from discontented people who place their locus of control outside their power and who also have no confidence in existing culture or traditions. Feeling their lives are “irredeemably spoiled” and believing there is no hope for advancement or satisfaction as an individual, true believers seek “self-renunciation”.[3] Thus, such people are ripe to participate in a movement that offers the option of subsuming their individual lives in a larger collective. Leaders are vital in the growth of a mass movement, as outlined below, but for the leader to find any success, the seeds of the mass movement must already exist in people’s hearts.”
‘Part 2 The Potential Converts’: “The “New Poor” are the most likely source of converts for mass movements…., Racial and religious minorities, particularly those only partly assimilated into mainstream culture, are also found in mass movements. Those who live traditionalist lifestyles tend to be content, but the partially assimilated feel alienated from both their forebears and the mainstream culture…., what Hoffer terms “misfits” are also found in mass movements. Examples include “chronically bored”, the physically disabled or perpetually ill, the talentless, and criminals or “sinners”. In all cases, Hoffer argues, these people feel as if their individual lives are meaningless and worthless.”
‘Part4 Beginning and End’: “Hoffer identifies three main personality types as the leaders of mass movements, “men of words”, “fanatics”, and “practical men of action”. No person falls exclusively into one category, and their predominant quality may shift over time…., Mass movements begin with “men of words” or “fault-finding intellectuals” such as clergy, journalists, academics, and students who condemn the established social order…. Leadership uses an eclectic bricolage of ideological scraps to reinforce the doctrine, borrowing from whatever source is successful in holding the attention of true believers.”
A quote from Hoffer p-147:
“There are, of course, rare leaders such as Lincoln, Gandhi, even F.D.R., Churchill, and Nehru. They do not hesitate to harness man’s hungers and fears to weld a following and make it zealous unto death in service of a holy cause; but unlike a Hitler, a Stalin, or even a Luther and a Calvin, they are not tempted to use the slime of frustrated souls as mortar in the building of a new world…. They know that no one can be honorable unless he honors mankind”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
I put this up as a sign, and caution to all, otherwise we may be facing a ‘coup de grace’ to our republic.
A coup de main has been perpetrated/orchestrated to further delineate these two groups:
1. The left: “Part 1 The Appeal of Mass Movements’: “Hoffer states that mass movements begin with a widespread “desire for change” from discontented people who place their locus of control outside their power and who also have no confidence in existing culture or traditions.”
2. The right: “There are, of course, rare leaders such as Lincoln, Gandhi, even F.D.R., Churchill, and Nehru. They do not hesitate to harness man’s hungers and fears to weld a following and make it zealous unto death in service of a holy cause….”
CAUTION: mourn, question, and follow what is good and right. But, don’t buy into the madness that will bring the “coup de grace.”
Is it a “coup de main” if a country loses its populace?
If women are provided artificial political affirmative action, obtain insane abortion, become men, and stop making babies, what happens to the country?
The fertility rate declines, falling into a “death spiral,” the population vanishes, the country is invaded, and there is no more country.
Are women then accretive contributors to, or the mortal enemy of, that country?
Good one, Bec
“I have pushed back on calls to crackdown on anyone celebrating his murder (though there are cases where free speech is not a barrier to such action). ”
Un-fcking-believable position.
Floyd, has he? I have not seen him push back on Rubio’s threat to revoke visas because some foreign student celebrated. Or revoke passports because a U.S. citizen celebrated Kirk’s death. The whole celebration is free speech. Turley’s being a hypocrite.
Prof. Turley, you’re hinting that some responses to the assassination may be so over the top as to be illegal. Can’t you put into words what line has been crossed?
Don’t worry, we’re not going to brand you as a traitor to the free-speech movement just because you admit that there are reasonable limits to public speech, and discuss them in detail. We’re intelligent people — we can handle nuance.
“Prof. Turley, you’re hinting that some responses to the assassination may be so over the top as to be illegal. Can’t you put into words what line has been crossed?” – pbinca
You’re not asking the right question: When “lines” are blurred, moved or removed, for the sake of immoral justifications, there becomes no path to determine what is reasonable or not, no way to point up “limits” or even to morally internalize those “limits.” Welcome to the sinister, cynical and evil, secular atheist’s world.
“Welcome to the sinister, cynical and evil, secular atheist’s world.”
Apparently you do not know that there are secular codes of morality, complete with “limits” — starting with Aristotle, some 2,500 years ago.
Apparently, I DO! It is no secret that “secular codes of morality” are indeed better than nothing, and before Jesus arrived Aristotle was good enough, ….
but make no mistake, when sincere and legitimate morality is lost, secular morality is unreliable. E.g., secular morality is at the very root of “virtue signaling” with ALL its horrifically double-standard permissions to do verbal and physical violence if that code-signaling is not observed and practiced in the way today’s atheists prescribe.
Dianna,
PBinc is nearly always wrong.
However most of these firings are at colleges and universities.
GENERALLY (details do matter) colleges and universities are subject to the same first amendment provisions and Government.
AS such I expect that SOME of these firings will result in lawsuits and the party fired may win.
AS I have said REPEATEDLY – the solution is to disentangle govenrment completely with education.
The firing of college professors and teachers for their speech on the Kirk Assassination may be tricky.
But I do think that we have passed a “Turning Point”.
Colleges and universities – particularly the elite institutions have gone too far left.
Ultimately that is unsustainable.
I talk alot about free markets. Even in totalitarian communist systems – there are free markets.
They are called black markets.
Free markets ALWAYS adapt dynamically to provide people as much of what they want and need as is possible from what they produce. When we make that illegal – then it STILL occurs, but on the black market.
My POINT is that even totalitarian societies must deal with the fact that markets will always try to provide what people want and need.
If today’s colleges do not provide what people want and need – they will either have to change or die.
The greatest threat to colleges and universities today is not that Trump will cut off their funds if they continue racist and sexist programs.
The threat is because people WANT the end of those programs. If Trump is ultimately thwarted by the courts, those programs are still end of life – so long as people want them to end.
One of the reasons the left fails – often with copious blood, is that it seeks to change People – and when it can not do so by persuasion, it then seeks to do so by FORCE – govenrment.
We succeed – thrive when we seek to give people what they want – without the use of FORCE.
Much to agree upon: you might say that the education “market” has developed an ideological glut that it cannot bear, and the intellectual free market will right itself and work toward equilibrium.
What is wrong of us is to start doxxing and cancelling exactly as the left has so fallaciously demonstrated over the years—it is tempting to fight their fire with their kind of fire (injustice by “virtue” of NOT conforming to rules and standards of civic decency).
While we don’t want these extreme-leftists justified, winning wrongful termination suits in the future, there should be a moral/cultural price to pay for the kind of social depravity that inspires murder, and celebration of murder, in the name of social justice.
In today’s extremely strange begging-for-Mamdani environment, it is hard to wait for the market….
The professor is trying to have it both ways while trying to avoid looking like a hypocrite.
It’s as close as he can get to directly criticizng Trump without incurring the wrath of MAGA or Trump.
In what way ?
You claim Turley’s post is hypocritical but you do not identify the hypocracy.
Trump BTW does not have very much to do with the Kirk Story – in the narrow or broad sense.
An assassination of a major political figure has occured.
This is so big we are seeing protests accross the world. South Korea, the UK, Brazil, ….
Clearly this touched a nerve.
Why did this happen ? Your free to make your arguments. But hundreds of millions of people are blaming the Left.
Can you fire someone for celebrating assassination ? The courts will work that out on a case by case basis.
Should morally repugnant people who celebrate political assassination work for you ?
Hundreds of millions say NO.
Even Tyler Robinson is not especially relevant.
This was WRONG and half the people left of center are celebrating evil.
Even if you can not fire people for protected speech – people do not want to hear that from those who beleive that you can MURDER people for protected speech.
Those of you on the left are the problem.
Not because I say so, but because increasingly the people of the US, the people of the WORLD say so.
“Prof. Turley, you’re hinting that some responses to the assassination may be so over the top as to be illegal. Can’t you put into words what line has been crossed?”
No hinting.
Further assassinations would be illegal
Counter assassinations would be illegal.
Government censorship – either of the right or the left would be illegal.
Everything that was illegal before is illegal after.
“Don’t worry, we’re not going to brand you as a traitor to the free-speech movement just because you admit that there are reasonable limits to public speech, and discuss them in detail. ”
The limits to free speech are NOT and can not be Subjective. – that it a not “reasonable”
Calling for the firing of those praising assassination – is protected free speech.
Actually firing them would violate the first amendment If and Only If it was government directed or done by a govenrment Actor
Actually firing them in SOME instances MIGHT be a violation of their contract rights.
It is likely there will be a large number of lawsuits resulting from firing people for their bad reaction to the Kirk assassination.
Some of those fired may win those lawsuits. That will depend on FACTS unique to each specific case.
HOWEVER as a general rule – you can fire someone for their speech – you can fire then for no reason at all. As long as you are not government or a government actor, and their is no free speech protection in their employment contractor.
Private contractual rights to free speech are EXTREMELY common with respect to colleges and universities. They are uncommon elsewhere. Many of these firings are at colleges and universities.
Government agents – and most colleges are government agents are generally bound to afford the same first amendment protections that Government must provide.
This is Why Trump is defunding college and universities for DEI programs and why ultimately SCOTUS is unlikely to stop that. There is already SCOTUS preceident that colleges and universities that accept government funding must respect constitutional and civil rights of students and faculty.
Trump will be allowed to defund DEI, and some higher education firings will run afoul of the first amendment.
But the FACTS of each case matter.
Even the federal Government can fire you for speech that is NOT protected by the first amendment.
Celebrating an assassination is protected. Inciting further violence is not.
Speaking officially as a member of govenrment or the institution is NOT PROTECTED.
Speaking Quasi officially – has SOME protection
Speaking privately i.e. without connection to the institution is protected.
The above is ONLY for employers who are also government actors.
Private employers can fire you for no reason.
“We’re intelligent people — we can handle nuance.”
But your not
further – law is NOT about “nuance” – it is about clear bright line rules.
John Say posted “Actually firing them would violate the first amendment If and Only If it was government directed or done by a govenrment Actor”
If a government fires a Navy officer who tells his following on social media that he dreams of one of his social media followers giving John Say the Charlie Kirk treatment because John Say supports pretty much the same as Kirk did, that’s a 100% legitimate firing. That’s a clear bright line rule.
There may not be such a thing as codes of conduct in the universe of libertarian extremism, but there definitely are in real world America. Including for all the employees (and every supervisor at every level) who are paid by taxpayers to fill those government jobs.
For those who don’t agree with complying with those codes of conduct they agree to comply with in exchange for the job and the paycheck – they don’t have to work for government if they think doing so will infringe their freedom.
Like the Constitution and constitutional rights, expanding definitions of First Amendment rights to become a suicide pact is not an intent found in the writings of those that wrote and ratified either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Taking a cue from Charlie’s organization, some commentators have said Charlie’s assassination was a “turning point” in America. So . . . is this maybe the beginning of the “fourth turning”?
No. It’s just another shooting among many that happen in the country. There is nothing really significant about Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Lawmakers have been shot and attacked before. People with more stature and prominence than Charlie Kirk have been killed and it has not turned into a “turning point”.
The right wants to make him into a martyr and lionize him for what he did. But he was just another influencer/debater who became another victim of our country’s problem of increasing political violence. Like Ashli Babbitt, she was killed while participating in a riot and committing a crime and sadly paid the ultimate price for it.
Case in point, on the same day there was a school shooting that seriously injured two students. The news barely picked it up. Charlie Kirk’s death was more important than a run-of-the-mill school shooting. That is how normal it is now. A school shooting is barely news. It’s a common occurrence.
GEORGE
Like Ashli Babbitt, she was killed while participating in a riot and committing a crime and sadly paid the ultimate price for it.
Wrong!
She was murdered by police for no good reason. Any other cop would be in jail for that. But the dems had to make his some kind of hero.
She was participating in a riot and attempted to breach a secure area. She got shot because she ignored orders from a LEO. We all know what happens when you ignore orders and force your way into a secure area. You get shot. She made a stupid decision and it got her killed.
shot because she ignored orders from a LEO.
*******************
Wrong… There was all kinds on noise going on AND the office has in no danger. He murdered her.
He was doing his job. Defending a secure area. He was authorized to use deadly force in such an event. An ongoing riot and people threatening to kidnap and injure congressment will leave no doubt as to what needs to be done. They are trained for that. Babbitt made a very stupid decision and it cost her her life. She knew LEO’s had guns drawn and pointed in her direction yet she continued to breach the barrier.
georgie, how do you know what Ashley knew or did not know, saw or did not see? It’s so irritating when you are so clairvoyant and intelligent and everyone around you is so stupid, isn’t it georgie?
George wrote: “We all know what happens when you ignore orders and force your way into a secure area. You get shot.”
Well, that’s another lie. Aside from your lie that the racist Capitol Police officer ordered Ashley Biden to stop before murdering her at near-contact range in Che Guevara style (and luckily not having the murder bullet pass through and also kill one of his fellow police officers standing just behind her, calmly watching her) – a question about your claim:
How many of the rioters who forced their way into the Senate to stop senators who were present from voting to confirm Justice Kavanaugh to the court were shot by Capitol Police present who ordered them to stop?
Even one?
The hundreds of rioters that carried out the day and a half riot/assault on the White House while Trump and his wife were inside a few weeks before Babbit was murdered. While they were attempting to murder Capitol Police with thrown Molotov Cocktails and ignoring orders to stop… how many were shot by those Capitol Police officers, George?
Even one? How many attempted murders by throwing Molotov Cocktails at Capitol Police does it take to get Capitol Police to kill you? Or is Death by Racist Cop only reserved for females crawling through broken windows while other police stand behind just watching?
You come here just for the abuse and humiliation because that’s how you get your sexual gratification as a masochist, George.
Dustoff,
Can you just imagine what might’ve happened had Ashley Babbitt been an unarmed black woman instead of the unarmed, white, veteran that she was?
The socio-political mayhem surrounding Charlie Kirk’s assassination is certainly part and parcel of the 4th Turning. If you can’t see how the world and its politics have suddenly gone strangely illogical and excessive, your willful blindness, nevertheless, points it up.
“–The fourth Turning–has always been the most perilous, a period of civic upheaval and national mobilization as traumatic and transformative as the New Deal era and World War II, the Civil War, or the American Revolution.” Neil Howe (book jacket quote)
Is “socio-political mayhem” anything like incoherence and hysteria? “Wandering womb: The term “hysteria” comes from the Greek word for uterus, hystera. The ancient Egyptians and Greeks believed that a woman’s uterus could “wander” throughout her body, causing a variety of physical and mental problems,” AI Overview.
You seem eager to pull out some negative discussion about biological females, and this post is stranger than the one above (1:54 pm: “Is it a “coup de main” if a country loses its populace?”).
Why don’t you explain your stance, along with your questions—you might get a bite.
What was that if not a bite? Oh, I know, an answer?
YOUR bite is understood, but not the motivation. The answer you think you have, and don’t, might be more interesting than you think.
George posted “There is nothing really significant about Charlie Kirk’s assassination.”
You post that like you actually believe that lie. Why don’t you provide a list of Democrat commentators, Democrat voter group leaders that have been murdered in similar circumstances (with the murderer leaving similar signs of their opposing political agenda behind) to prove it’s not really significant?
And if you think the reaction to Kirk’s murder is insignificant, with tens of thousands of requests from High School and College/University students for new Turning Point chapters to be set up in their schools, you’re not only pathologically lying to us – you’re pathologically lying to yourself.
If you believe this will not have a significant affect on future elections, as Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point did in getting young adults out to vote for Trump in the last election… you must be running on drugs as well as handicapped by stupidity.
“Case in point, on the same day there was a school shooting that seriously injured two students. The news barely picked it up.”
Now you’re lying to us that you weren’t watching CNN looking for lies to harvest and parrot here? CNN as well as more successful news channels with bigger audiences picked it up:
At least 3 injured after shooting at a Denver-area high school
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/us/at-least-2-students-shot-denver-area-high-school
That deflection based on yet another of your lies really falls because your favorite propaganda news networks aren’t picking up that the murderer of Charlie Kirk had Biden/Anti “anti-fascist” and Tranny symbolism written on his ammunition.
George, does it ever bother you that you were born without a conscience and grew into a pathological liar, but also handicapped with such woefully low intelligence that you don’t have a hope of pulling any of your lies?
We shall see. It was merely June to July 1914 for WWI.
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb nationalist, directly triggered the chain of events that led to the outbreak of World War I.
Declaration of War: When Serbia failed to meet all demands, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia in July 1914.
george
nothing really significant about Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
_________________________________
Simple george. Charlie Kirk’s is a person you could never be.
Explains why you libs so hate him,
Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed, defenseless female, was murdered by a big, brave, and courageous cop (sarc) who must have subdued and detained her of his superior physicality.
Ashli Babbitt was the very definition of “overkill” by a contrived imposter under color of authority.
We are not at the beginning. I think we are in the middle. Peter Theil thinks woke peaked prior to 2020. I think he is correct. We are near the peak on the downward slope.
Is this a milestone ? Certainly. It is not the turning point – because we have already turned.
but it may be the beginning of acceleration of the trend.
“ Despite my friendship with Charlie, I have pushed back on calls to crack down on anyone celebrating his murder (though there are cases where free speech is not a barrier to such action).”
The situation is rife with irony, or perhaps it’s more accurately described as hypocrisy. It’s striking that I have yet to witness Professor Turley openly criticize former President Trump for his administration’s punitive measures against visa holders who may be celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death. Individuals such as foreign visitors, permanent residents, and those on H-1B visas possess fundamental free speech rights like everyone else here and should be protected. Alarmingly, the Trump administration has even suggested revoking the passports of U.S. citizens who publicly celebrate Kirk’s passing. Punishing Americans for saying something that some may find offensive to conservatives? This raises serious questions about the protection of free speech, and it seems Professor Turley is either neglecting to address these blatant assaults on such rights or purposefully diverting attention from it by focusing on matters concerning the European Union and the United Kingdom.
Moreover, Trump went as far as to instruct his Attorney General to investigate whether RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) laws could be applied to prosecute and jail protesters who were vocally expressing and yelling “Free Palestine” outside a restaurant where he was dining with his cabinet members. This incident demonstrates a clear intent to intimidate and suppress dissent. In other words, Trump is anti-free speech.
I find it hard to believe that Professor Turley is oblivious to these worrying infringements on free speech. However, he appears to be opting for a more “cautious” or ignorant approach, deliberately avoiding the bright spotlight on the clear and present dangers to free speech posed by the President and his administration. The level of hypocrisy shown here is both astounding and hypocritical, unfortunately, not surprising given the heated political environment coming from the right.
You’re describing President Double-Standard. He’ll never rise above President Case-By-Case-Decision-Maker.
His mentality is primitivist, as in “we don’t need no stinking rules”. It’s like 300 years of post-monarchy law-making being just tossed aside. You may get faster results by suspending rule-of-law, but when it finally turns against YOU, it’ll be too late.
George/X wrote: “The situation is rife with irony, or perhaps it’s more accurately described as hypocrisy.”
More accurately, your posts are nothing but a muddled collection of democrat lies, deflection, channeling, and bitter hate and anger.
“It’s striking that I have yet to witness Professor Turley openly criticize former President Trump”
It’s striking that what describes what you are better than any of all the accurate rebuttals, is that in all your years of posting here as George/X/Anonymous/etc… not a SINGLE TIME, NOT ONCE has there been a single column posted here by your host that you have expressed agreement with.
It is always “Professor Turley is wrong – and as I use his blog as though it were mine, I will use it to tell you the real truth about your host Professor Turley – My Democrat Truth!”
The NYT is not fit to wrap fish or to put at the bottom of a bird cage
So, a contemporary individual likely having the DNA of a radical Islamist speaks articulately and has the appearance of a normal westerner. The problem is that so many have the inability to think critically.
“So, a contemporary individual likely having the DNA of a radical Islamist speaks articulately and has the appearance of a normal westerner. ”
Which one do you have in mind? Ilhan Omar or Rasheed Tlaib?
Neither of those hajjis are articulate, nor do they meet any normal definition of “normal westerner”. Marrying and bedding your brother as Omar did is hardly a “normal westerner” (to be fair, Hunter Biden bedded his sister-in-law before his brother’s body was cold).
So… which one were you speaking of?
The NYT is poison and a cancer. I subscribed to the paper for more than 20 years until the early 2000’s when I had enough of its explicit support for the enemies of America. I can only wish ill will on its disgusting management. They cannot be banned but they must be shunned and excoriated incessantly.
JT says “”To see Piker espousing violence with the Antifa book in the background is a chilling reminder of the violent radicalism taking over many in the left.”
here is a quote from trump…
“Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”
November 22, 2015, in response to a Fox News host asking about a heckler at Trump’s rally in Alabama the day before
Is JT saying trump is a left leaning person they way he calls for violence against a person?
But muh! Trump! Wawawawa
“Is JT saying trump is a left leaning person they way he calls for violence against a person?”
Are you saying that Trump is also specifically calling for murder with instructions like (to paraphrase the murderous Antifa thug you’re defending): ““let the streets soak in their red-Commie blood!”?
You’re a novice at this Democrat channeling and BS moral equivalency game, aren’t you! Go enlist a mentor to help you do a better next time.