Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're ignoring the part of the quote where he implied the killer was MAGA or MAGA affiliated. For reference the full quote is:

>The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it

Kimmel didn't explicitly make the accusation that the killer was MAGA, but the use of the wording "desperately trying to imply ... as anything other than one of them" definitely gives that impression. I mean, why else would they be "desperately" trying to? If an attempt was made on Bernie or AOC I wouldn't characterize leftists prematurely blaming it on the right as "desperately". It's just the most logical inference. The "killer was right wing" narrative was also being pushed in some left leaning circles, so it's not exactly outlandish either.



I disagree - my read is that he is saying the MAGA gang was trying to exploit the tragedy and desperately point fingers, which I think is accurate.


>You're ignoring the part of the quote where he implied the killer was MAGA or MAGA affiliated. For reference the full quote is:

He did not. But even if he did, so what?

Does either interpretation make his comment somehow illegal and deserving of government threats to retaliate against folks unless Kimmel was punished?

That's not a rhetorical question.

IMNSHO, you're focusing on the wrong thing here. What difference does it make what legal speech was used? The problem is that the government is trying to silence the critics of those currently in power. And at least in the US, the government isn't allowed to do that -- whether they're critics of the current administration or not.

If you don't decry that, it could be you and yours next. You've been warned.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: