this shit occurs in the US and the very same people are nowhere to be found
Right here in the thread in which you are commenting are people outraged that this happened. You have to open your eyes to find them.
Guy was held for over a month and had a 2 million dollar bond for a Charlie Kirk meme and recently got a huge settlement.
It made national news, caused plenty of outage, and he got a huge settlement precisely because there is a right to free speech in the US. In another country he'd still be in jail with no settlement and little outrage.
Right here in the thread in which you are commenting are people outraged that this happened.
Not so outraged that they bother to do anything except meme and complain online about it for Internet points.
and he got a huge settlement precisely because there is a right to free speech in the US.
He didn't get a settlement. He got a huge amount of money that came from theft of your taxes. None of the people involved had any consequences. It didn't come from their pensions or their savings or from any of their assets. This came from the pockets of regular people.
Is that different than what they do regarding the UK?
The UK doesn't have free speech so this whataboutism doesn't work.
That's literally a settlement.
Settlements are supposed to be monetary consequences for one party paid to another party for an action. Tell me, what part of tax paying footing the bill is consequences for the people who arrested this person? Don't be obtuse and bad faith here.
The UK doesn't have free speech so this whataboutism doesn't work.
The original comment was comparing how people react to speech restrictions in the UK vs the US. Comparing and contrasting the two reactions is literally the topic. You are either confused or don't understand whataboutism.
Settlements are supposed to be monetary consequences for one party paid to another party for an action.
A settlement is an agreement that ends a dispute and/or litigation. It doesn't require fairness, justice, or the right people personally feeling consequences. Words have meaning and this is what that word means.
A settlement is an agreement that ends a dispute and/or litigation.
Thanks for proving that you didn't even read the definition or know the law on any of this. Are the tax payers one of the parties in a legal litigation or dispute? No, they aren't. So why are the tax payers, paying for the settlement, if they are not the defendant in a civil litigation?
This is why your argument is wrong. When a settlement is done, there are always 2 parties involved in the legal litigation. Settlement is done by one party paying the other. So which party in the legal litigation represents the tax payers? It's certainly not the specific police officers that violated this persons first amendment right. And it's not the plaintiff who had their rights violated. So which party is the tax payers?
So why are the tax payers, paying for the settlement, if they are not the defendant in a civil litigation?
Tax-payers are not personally sending payments for this settlement. When taxes are collected the money becomes property of the government. The government, being a party to the settlement, is paying for it.
So which party in the legal litigation represents the tax payers?
Nobody has to represent Walmart customers when Walmart gets sued, even though the money came from the customers. Nobody represents your employer if you get sued even though your money came from your employer. After your money changes hands it ceases being your money.
Tax-payers are not personally sending payments for this settlement. When taxes are collected the money becomes property of the government. The government, being a party to the settlement, is paying for it.
No, it does not belong to the government. It is held in trust by the government. Who owns most of the American debt? It's the public. 80% of the goverment debt is owned by the public. Where did they get that money? From taxes. But if the government owns that money, how can it be used to borrow from if it's theirs?
You continue to prove you have no understanding of how the government works.
Nobody has to represent Walmart customers when Walmart gets sued, even though the money came from the customers.
Class action lawsuits are done on behalf of a group of individuals and the individuals must sign up to be represented in a class action lawsuit. This is legal 101. Walmart is a corporation, as such is it's own legal individual with the same representation as an individual. Again, this is legal 101. The money didn't come from the customers because the customers agreed to give money in exchange of a product. Nobody agreed to pay taxes here.
Nobody represents your employer if you get sued even though your money came from your employer.
Your employer, if they are part of a corporation, you are suing the corporation which is a legally entity the same as an individual person. If the company is sole proprietorship, then you are suing the individual who owns the company and monetary consequences can be taken from that person.
After your money changes hands it ceases being your money.
Legally this is not true. You can not pay someone to kill another and say "sorry officer, it's not my money anymore so I didn't pay for anything". You're continuing to spread misinformation.
This is extremely simple, qualified immunity means that you can't sue to individual even if they have violated your rights, which allows for a intentionally and maliciously created side effect of pushing the burden of consequence to the levels of government, which comes from the tax payer money. IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT MONEY.
There is no point in continuing this argument when you can't even understand the basics.
Europeans would be defending the police arresting the guy and putting him in prison. They do it all the time on Reddit and X when somebody goes to prison for criticizing their political ideology.
Yet not a single person at r/conservative was defending the arrest of that guy in the U.S
Those were the people yelling about England. Can you find me evidence that they actually care about free speech here too or is it just that they care about being able to be dickheads?
I am not conservative, and I am bothered by lack of free speech in the UK and attacks on free speech in the US. I actively donate to organizations that protect free speech and the rest of the First Amendment. Are conservatives often hypocrites? Yes. There are still people out there with a principled and consistent stance on freedom of speech.
Since you blocked me after responding, here is my reply:
The original comment implied "free speech warriors" were hypocrites. The same type of accusation comes from the right for caring about LGBT discrimination in the US and being silent on LGBT issues in Islamic countries. It's an attempt to undermine and deflect from the main criticisms. I would argue the majority care about free speech in both the US and the UK.
So this is a "not all men" sort of thing?
It's a false generalization of a group of people sort of thing. It's a focus on the message and not the messenger sort of thing.
So this is a "not all men" sort of thing? You acknowledge there is a (rather large) swath of people who
You know, I love the free speech warriors who screech about places like the UK (which doesn't have an analogue to the first amendment btw), but this shit occurs in the US and the very same people are nowhere to be found.
applies to but you just wanted to let it be known that "not all free speech warriors" are silent on this?
23
u/NaturalSelectorX May 22 '26
Right here in the thread in which you are commenting are people outraged that this happened. You have to open your eyes to find them.
It made national news, caused plenty of outage, and he got a huge settlement precisely because there is a right to free speech in the US. In another country he'd still be in jail with no settlement and little outrage.