And the assassin chose to prove Mr Kirk wrong in a way words couldn’t.
However - If spending money can legally be protected as “free speech” in the US, then what other actions could be considered “free speech” and therefore is protected under the first amendment?
If Mr Kirk was openly asking to be proven wrong, then couldn’t the assassins bullet be protected under free speech as a clear (but violent) answer to that question?
But as an American, how is money coming from a political donation legally protected free speech?
Since I’m not a lawyer, and I assume you are, please walk me through how that concept, legally, makes more sense than a bullet coming from a gun being considered free speech in a “Prove me Wrong” tour about gun violence.
Honestly, no antogonization intended, I would earnestly love to hear an actual lawyers take on the differences between these two concepts.
Because from my perspective: both are genuinely poorly reasoned when it comes to the first amendment and free speech, yet one is actually legal.
TBF the laws in the USA are wack enough that the weapon might not fall under the definition of deadly weapon and therefore firearms related crime.
Better still:
Mr Kirk was on his “Prove me Wrong” tour.
And the assassin chose to prove Mr Kirk wrong in a way words couldn’t.
However - If spending money can legally be protected as “free speech” in the US, then what other actions could be considered “free speech” and therefore is protected under the first amendment?
If Mr Kirk was openly asking to be proven wrong, then couldn’t the assassins bullet be protected under free speech as a clear (but violent) answer to that question?
As a friend I’m saying it’s time to drop out of law school.
The MAGA appointed judge that’s doing absolutely everything chat gpt suggests might be buying that argument, you never can tell.
Not in law school 😂
But as an American, how is money coming from a political donation legally protected free speech?
Since I’m not a lawyer, and I assume you are, please walk me through how that concept, legally, makes more sense than a bullet coming from a gun being considered free speech in a “Prove me Wrong” tour about gun violence.
Honestly, no antogonization intended, I would earnestly love to hear an actual lawyers take on the differences between these two concepts.
Because from my perspective: both are genuinely poorly reasoned when it comes to the first amendment and free speech, yet one is actually legal.
Would love to know why that is.
Citizens United v Federal Exchange Commission