466
I mean, I'd still plan walkouts anyway if I was a student. Fuck it.
I’m pretty sure walk outs are ever really “allowed” it just look bad arrested hundreds of kids
Nothing says "free speech" like banning protest.
Just to talk through conservatives' blatant hypocrisy:
Conservativism is correlated generally with a lack of empathy (general scientific essay collecting evidence here). For people who fundamentally lack empathy, one explanation is that they literally cannot tell the difference between "free speech" and "my free speech." To them, they cannot understand why any valid moral goal would be different from theirs. That implies that any exercise of free speech by them and those like them is valid, and free speech by others with different goals would be invalid.
So likely they see Charlie Kirk's "censorship" as a free speech issue, and not LGBTQ censorship, because they actually lack the cognitive tools to understand the contradiction.
I'm not sure what the solution is here, short of sending Henry Cavill to the predominantly-male conservatives who think this way, and giving them a long, romantic kiss to make them realize they are also a little LGBTQ, to expand their sympathy base to make up for their lack of empathy. But I doubt Henry Cavill would volunteer for this particular task.
I can say I feel this when talking with people who are upset at protests. Its kinda exhausting when they don't get how rights won't apply to anyone if they are selective. I literally have gotten them close. So you see then a cop could pull you over because he does not like you and have you shipped overseas and you would never get a chance to prove your citizenship. Response I get. Oh common do you know any cop that would do that. me. sigh. after taking a long long time to get them sorta kinda getting the idea.
The solution is to focus on our education system and possibly start requiring school before people can do certain things. I think for example in order to have kids you should be required to take a parenting class for a period of time. I mainly bring this up because my wife is a teacher and at least half of her students each year have parents who either don't want to be a parent or have zero idea how to be a parent. Some form of required education will be a barrier between those who don't want kids and useful for those who don't know what to do. My wife and I fostered kids for a period of time and we were not only required to take classes before we could but we had to redo those classes each year, and that was just to foster kids not have them for example.
Its not perfect but too many people are having kids and not doing anything for themselves to be prepared for that, they just rely on the schools to do everything and there is only so much a teacher can do for these kids. My wife who teaches elementary aged kids has had on numerous occasions to teach children how to wipe their own butts because their parents won't do it themselves, this isn't something a teacher should have to do but its either she explains it to them or deals with a stinky child all day who is upset because of it. This is just one example and there are numerous others.
The problem with "required lessons" for things is always, how do you keep it unbiased and directed. You can't always assume a benevolent leadership, so how do these required lessons resist becoming political tools to suppress minorities.
For instance, a required teaching on informed voting sounds great on paper, but requiring a course before voting adversely affects lower income individuals even if the material is unbiased, but over time these courses would be used by the party in charge to "inform" the voters why their side is better.
The same could be said for required parenting classes or anything else. Not saying we shouldn't do it, but it's not nearly as easy as setting up some courses and making people take them.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
Just for extra Irony Points, this is being done in the name of one of the supposed free-speech-maximalist DEBATEMEBRO types.
Not that I ever thought that he was genuine about it, either, but FFS. If anyone ever wants to see one of the biggest cases of conservative "free speech maximalism" in action, it's someone like fElon and the way he runs Xitter.
Even worse…. You can’t walk out, which is turning free speech into compelled speech. You must listen or risk being expelled.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
They can't penalize you for walking out if you just drop out of school entirely, get a GED, and leave the shitty state to work somewhere else.
yes they will.
"Charlie Kirk was someone who encouraged everyone to love others,”
I audibly burst out laughing. Ether this fucker had no idea who he was before he died, or he is lying his ass off.
Conservatives sure do hate freedom
For people who also bitch about echo chambers and safe spaces, they sure do love them.
Almost like...
In order to keep the memory of their hero alive, all speaking engagements covered by this act must take place outside in an area with long, unobstructed sight lines.
Surrounded by high towers...
And security is on a smoke break.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Authoritarianism is an admission of abject weakness.
White supremacists are the weakest and most brittle snowflakes.
A conservative blogger, and a dogshit one at that
That’s all this bloke was
Can someone remind me what America used to do to fascists?
Invite them to work in the government?
Or you mean before that? With the bayonets?
Give them government jobs and shield them from prosecution.
Ask Charlie.
I would organize a walkout just to F with them
- Distribute "Fuck Charlie Kirk" t-shirts
- Go to the conservative speaking engagement in said shirts
- Watch their heads spin when they can't figure out if they're supposed to make you leave or make you stay
Walkout in honor of Charlie.
Nah, stay. Just have loud conversations amongst the audience ignoring anyone onstage/with a mic. Ignore anything that is said.
Make the speaker angry enough to leave.
load more comments
(1 replies)
and prohibit administrations from uninviting a speaker based on their opposition to abortion or LGBTQ rights
Why only opposition to these issues? Are administrations free to prohibit speakers in support of these issues? How is this not governmental viewpoint suppression in violation of the constitutional protection of freedom of speech? This is insane.
It's exactly that, they just don't care
"The Charlie Kirk Act... ~~addresses~~ restricts free speech"
Fixed that for them
"Tennessee' Charlie Kirk Act bans political protest and limits free speech."
The GOP is going to continue pushing anti-American legislation. At least in this case they're not pretending otherwise with some subversive name for it.
Putting an underwhelming big mouth on a pedestal and building discriminatory legislation around that shitcunt? It’s as American as it gets.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The Constitution ONLY allows us to SHOOT CHILDREN and NOTHING else!
-Constitution Loving Republicans!
load more comments
(4 replies)
fReE sPeEcH
Free speech is when you ban free speech.
LOL TRY AND ENFORCE IT, YA MALIGNANT CUNTS.
Idk this is Americans, they’re pretty compliant
What the fuck do walkouts have to do with Kirk?
load more comments
(2 replies)
But does it protect ya neck
Oh look. Another first amendment violation for the queue to be struck down the second it hits a courtroom. Your tax dollars at work.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Protest idea: a bunch of menstruating people free bleed all over the auditorium, because they were afraid to get up and go to the bathroom. It’s a clear enough biohazard that they’ll have to call a remediation company (who are well paid, educated, and supplied for this type of cleaning work), so it won’t fall to the regular cleaning staff, plus it’s going to specifically gross out the people who support this the most.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I swear the US is s fever dream
Tennessee is a shithole now
"Now" ?
load more comments
(1 replies)
As Charlie Kirk would have wanted it.
What are they gonna do suspend the kids that walkout? Also good trouble is good for your soul
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
466 points (99.8% liked)
politics
29385 readers
2711 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS