Stephen T. Stone 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (27002)

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2025 @ 02:34pm

  I don’t have a solid answer to that beyond “more speech”. The conservative politicians who now venerate Kirk in death could’ve been thoughtful enough to criticize his rhetoric while he was still living, but that’s on them. Alls I know is that if you try to censor his speech, you’ll likely end up Streisanding it and making it more appealing to people who might otherwise ignore his speech, and that won’t ever end well.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2025 @ 02:30pm

  The second amendment, for example, should not permit firearms with more than a single bullet between reloading. No six shooters, no magazines, no internal magazines. You load the gun, shoot it, manually remove the bullet, reload. That’s all anyone needs for hunting. That’s also all anyone really needs for self defense.

  And people call me naïve… Look, if you want to live like it’s the late 18th Century, that’s your business. I doubt that a whole lot of people are willing to join you, though. I do agree that the Second Amendment needs a rewrite (and The Weekly Sift has some good ideas on that front), but your idea is unlikely to gain any traction because it’s unrealistic on a number of levels.

  The founding fathers predated double action carbine rifles and 6 shooters, let alone 14 round semi-automatic rifles.

  The Founding Fathers also predated same-sex marriages, interracial marriages, and the end of chattel slavery. For what reason must we let the ghosts of men who died centuries ago continue to have the final say on what society should be?

  the first amendment should specify that private speech cannot be abridged, but that public speech may be abridged in the name of public safety

  And how do you determine the exact, objective demarcation line between the two when, say, a speaker is invited to a public university and makes their event invite-only or something similar?

  The founding fathers lived in a world where, to get your speech out, you needed to pay a significant amount of money to publish it.

  Again: For what reason must we let the ghosts of men who died centuries ago continue to have the final say on what society should be?

  The amendments should not be treated as a sacred document set in stone: They’re living things that are subject to reinterpretation and should also be subject to re-writing.

  But to make those rewrites, Congress and a majority of state legislatures have to agree to make a new amendment. Good luck making that happen in this age of hyperpartisan American politics.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2025 @ 11:45am

  You don’t, but there are A LOT of people celebrating the killing loudly and pushing that out far and wide across the series of tubes known as the internet.

  And that’s their right, and I’m not going to try to stop them. Charlie Kirk was a piece of shit; if someone gets a little bit of joy by joking about his death or whatever? Not my circus, not my monkeys.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2025 @ 11:42am

  In your last line are you suggesting that sort of thing is an attempt to solve a problem???

  All action is an attempt to exchange a less satisfactory state of affairs for a more satisfactory one. That holds true even if the action itself, or the motive behind it, is morally heinous.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2025 @ 10:46am

  Saying “It should be illegal to call for political violence” “It should be illegal to say that gay people should be stoned” (Which Charlie Kirk said) and “It should be illegal to spread COVID misinformation” is not a slippery slope any more than saying it should be illegal to hit people is a slippery slope.

  Yes, it is. Let’s say that you get your pretty little wish granted and speech like “gay people should be stoned” is made illegal. Okay, that’s all well and good. But now you have to consider a situation where a preacher says “gay people are a Satanic abomination and God should strike them down”. Even though that sentence contains no call for violence, direct or otherwise, it could still provoke someone into committing violence. If you believe that statement, and others like it, should be banned under the logic that hateful speech against gay people can incite violence, how would you ever get around the First Amendment and its protections for both speech and religious beliefs? But let’s say that somehow isn’t an issue and you get that speech banned, too. Okay, cool. Now assume a Republican takes the highest office in the land and decides that “anti-white” speech is also capable of inciting violence. How would you feel if he uses your law to criminalize any speech meant to “demean” white people⁠—including jokes that poke fun at white people? And the road goes ever further and ever deeper. Do we ban portrayals of gay people, people of color, and/or women that show them as anything other than the purest purehearted people in the world who are incapable of making any mistake and doing any harm, lest such “negative” portrayals lend themselves to fomenting hate of those groups? How deep does the rabbit hole go here, and where does one find the bottom where there’s always a new target to destroy? I understand that this situation sucks. Yes, the kind of shit Charlie Kirk and his conservative brethren say every day annoys the piss out of me, too. But your whole bit here suggests you would be fine if the government effectively instituted what underground right-wing circles would probably call “DEI Newspeak”. I can’t and won’t sign up for that idea, no matter how much you appeal to my emotions and try to make me look past my own personal beliefs in re: speech and expression.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2025 @ 10:33am

  Violence should absolutely be the last resort to dealing with any sociopolitical problem and censorship is never a solution to speech issues.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2025 @ 10:31am

  The requirement in criminal law to convince 12 random members of the jury that the speech is harmful should greatly curtail partisan effects.

  I don’t see how. Democrats and Republicans would likely have a difference of opinion on what would qualify as speech that requires criminalization. How can you come up with a law to ban the speech you want to ban that both passes Constitutional muster and accounts for political partisanship in defining the speech that deserves to be banned?

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2025 @ 10:28am

  People are actually calling for attacks in public media. This needs to be illegal.

  It is illegal. The problem you’re facing is that indirect incitement isn’t illegal, and that’s because it’s tough to prove whether a statement like “will no one rid me of this turbulent priest” is wholly intended to spur someone into violent action. I don’t like it any more than you do; stochastic terrorism sucks. But I don’t see any way to ban such speech without risking (A) mission creep, (B) partisan flip-flopping on what constitutes “indirect incitement” that changes depending on what political party is in charge, or (C) both A and B.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2025 @ 10:24am

  You want to talk about vile speech, look at what you are saying.

  I’m not out here saying…

  • “I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment.”
  • “I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that does a lot of damage.”
  • “They were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad. It was evil. But what happened? Something changed. They committed less crimes. … Black America is worse than it has been in the last 80 years.”
  • “The answer is yes. The baby would be delivered.” (in re: a hypothetical situation in which his 10-year-old daughter has been raped and made pregnant)
  • “A man who calls himself trans is wearing 'woman face,' no different than I would wear Black face trying to be a Black person. It's assuming an identity that isn't yours.”
  • “If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”
  • “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’ ” (in re: the plane/helicopter collision earlier this year and Trump blaming “DEI” for the collision)
  • “Now, I will say that for future retirees, people under the age of 45, we should absolutely raise the retirement age. I'm going to say something very provocative. I'm not a fan of retirement. I don't think retirement is biblical. … You say, 'Charlie, I'm just gonna retire and I'm just gonna go golf.' I think, what a waste of the gifts that God has given you.”
  • “Are you comfortable with both London and New York having Muslim mayors? That doesn’t feel right.”
  • “America does not need more visas for people from India. Enough already. We’re full. Let’s finally put our own people first.”
  • “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s.”
  • “24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11. Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City.” (in re: Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the Democrat primary for the NYC mayoral election)
  • “America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank: large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America.”
  • “America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.”

  …like that TRASH-peddling asshole Charlie Kirk. I’m not sad that he’s dead, and I’m not going to act like he was a saint worth mourning. And yes, I looked up every quote on that list to make sure they were all genuine, so don’t go telling me I misquoted him or whatever. He said all that heinous shit, so don’t go denying that he did.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2025 @ 08:15am

  One also has to take political partisanship into account. Sure, if one “side” promises to get rid of hate speech, that sounds all fine and dandy as a thought experiment. But if that “side” gets the power to censor speech according to their whims, what happens when the other “side” comes into power and changes the rules so the speech they dislike can be censored?

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2025 @ 07:19am

  It’s time to reassess the freedom of speech.

  Whose speech should be curtailed first? And whose speech should be curtailed after that? And after that? And after that? And when your speech is the speech that censors come for, whose speech will be left to defend yours?

• On the post: Federal Judges Are Done Playing Nice: NBC Reports Full-Scale Revolt Against SCOTUS Shadow Docket Bullshit

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2025 @ 07:17pm

  A ruling with no explanation is at best law by fiat, at worst it’s just plain ignoring the law.

  It’s also a way to rule in favor of the Trump administration while setting a temporary precedent that can later be nullified if a Democrat wins the presidency.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2025 @ 06:13pm

  Love you Stephen

  [presses X to Doubt]

  Nobody is going to be convinced to not celebrate his death because of a seven paragraph essay in which you spend four paragraphs groveling at the feet of this site’s commenters going “I know he was a heckin’ Bad Person and was super vile and evil BUT…”

  I didn’t write this for that reason⁠—and I didn’t think it would change anyone’s mind if they wanted to celebrate his death. Also: I sincerely believe Charlie Kirk was an asshole who, if he were still alive, would have no remorse or regret for targeting marginalized people with his rhetoric.

  The people you have surrounded yourself with are becoming increasingly more violent

  If you’re talking about queer people: Consider how much violence they’ve had to endure for decades. I’m not saying “an eye for an eye” is a good thing; it isn’t. I’m saying that I understand if some queer people⁠—especially trans people⁠—are fed up with being marginalized to the point where the right can call for their genocide and no one bats an eye.

  making more and more demands that you adhere to higher and higher (and soon impossible to maintain) standards

  You need to better explain what you’re talking about here because it implies that you want to be a victim of, say, a trans person asking you not to deadname them as if deadnaming them will get you killed.

  Even now they’re slagging you in these comments for it.

  So what? People have no obligation to agree with me, especially on this site. And I welcome disagreement on any subject (so long as it isn’t rooted in my right to exist). People who want to celebrate Kirk’s death can do that all they please; I can’t stop them, nor am I going to try.

  Don’t let other people decide who you are for you.

  The funny thing about this line? As I mentioned in the essay, someone has been trying for months to make me endorse this kind of violence. I’ve told them⁠—numerous times, sometimes at great length⁠—that I wouldn’t do that no matter how hard they tried to manipulate me into doing it. They won’t decide who I am for me. And I’m not actively trying to do that here. Arianity has disagreed with me in these comments, and I’ve presented counterarguments where appropriate, but I’m not out here going “hey, think like I do or you’re a right-wing piece of shit”. They’re going to be who they are and I’m going to be who I am; we might argue and disagree, and the possibility exists that one of us might change our minds, but neither one of us will change the other into a mirror image. And that ultimately holds true for you, too: I’ve told you before that posting under the name of a known troll is going to get you auto-flagged and taken far less seriously than you deserve. But you keep doing it anyway because that’s your right and your decision. I can’t force you to stop doing it⁠—nor am I going to try, because I’m not that much of an asshole.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2025 @ 05:56pm

  it probably was a wake up call for the RW grift machine

  If anything, his death will make them double down on their rhetoric to prove that they won’t be silenced for daring to speak their minds. Some of the more weak-willed grifters might slink back a bit, sure. But the ones who are true believers won’t shy away from their bullshit for a second.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2025 @ 05:52pm

  I’m not sure what someone who is targeted by that incitement is really supposed to do with that.

  The sad reality is that there isn’t much they can do. Once the words are spoken and heard, they can’t be unspoken and unheard. The government can’t arrest everyone who spoke/heard the words on the basis of “well, they might do something violent in the future”. This ultimately comes down to people needing to take more responsibility for their speech⁠—by which I mean they need to consider what they’re saying far more carefully than they may be doing right now. It’s part of the reason I avoid advocating for violence, political or otherwise: My words have weight and I’d rather not toss out the heaviest ones with no forethought about the impact they’ll have.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2025 @ 04:22pm

  At some point in the future I’d ask for non violent ways to shut down someone whos figured out how to get around basic safeguards and be able to call out coded language for what it really is, calls to violence.

  That idea has one small problem: “Incitement through coded language” would be near-impossible to prosecute as a crime. How could anyone ever be prosecuted for using “coded language” to incite violence if such language can always have different interpretations? Consider how both sides of the political aisle often use comparisons to Nazis/Hitler. (Yes, the right does it as well.) If someone makes compares a political figure to Hitler and a different person kills that political figure the next day, how can the person who made the comparison be cited for incitement of violence if they didn’t say “kill this person”? None of this is to say that the political temperature couldn’t stand to be lowered⁠—by both “sides”, really. What I’m saying is that any proposal to ban “coded language” will run headfirst into problems with interpretation and intent. You have to get around those hurdles to make a convincing case for such a ban; I don’t think you, or anyone else, could do that.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2025 @ 02:07pm

  Generals and politicians safely ensconced in their bunkers behind the lines are at least as much a participant in the violence they direct, as the schmucks soldiering at the front.

  Reminds me of the poem “The Prime Minister Told the Army” by Clive Sanders:

  The Prime Minister told the Army, The General told his men, The colonel briefed his officers, And a Major just asked “When?” The Captains ordered Sergeants, And the Sergeants told the troops, And the soldiers picked their weapons up, Then jumped through all the hoops. The Prime Minister praised the Army, The General expressed his thanks, The Colonel awarded medals, And the Majors filled their ranks, The Captains thanked their Sergeants, And said the men were brave. The Sergeants arranged the funerals, And the soldiers lined the grave.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2025 @ 01:32pm

  Everyone who disagrees with you is a nazi/fascist/bigot, amiright?

  Disagreement alone doesn’t make someone a fascist. Espousing bigoted rhetoric that borders on a direct call for the extermination of a group of marginalized people? That makes someone a fascist.

  It’s OK to punch nazis, amiright?

  Eh, depends on whether it’s just the one punch. Killing Charlie Kirk is wholly unacceptable; Dick Spencer getting punched so hard it ended his career…well, it’s not acceptable, but I ain’t gonna shed tears over it.

  Ergo, it’s perfectly OK to shoot someone for disagreeing with you.

  In all my years of commenting here on Techdirt, I have never seen anyone (whose posts were in good faith) say or imply anything close to that.

  The left wants to censor what people say.

  So does the right.

  The left is very, very hateful.

  The right is, in my experience, far more hateful⁠—and far more open about its hate.

  The left is willing to use violence to get it’s way.

  So is the right.

  The left thinks it’s ok to respond to speech with violence.

  You say that as if there aren’t people on the right who would be more than willing to kill those with whom they disagree/hate and justify it as “protecting children” or “keeping order”.

  So we’re here now.

  And you’re trying to make this a partisan thing and split people even further instead of interrogating the rhetoric of your own “side” and how it also raises the political temperature.

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2025 @ 01:13pm

  Hey, so, I’m actually on-board with the idea of violence in defense of self or others. What I’m not on board with is killing people because of their speech, no matter how odious or vile. Charlie Kirk was a piece of shit, and his rhetoric and political beliefs were not exactly what I’d call “good”. But his being murdered didn’t (and won’t) stop his beliefs from being held by others. Besides, if violence for the sake of stopping “offensive” rhetoric becomes acceptable and normalized, you’re gonna see a lot more people on the political left getting whacked by people from the political right. Do you want to live in a country⁠—in a world⁠—where a crackpot with a gun determines the acceptibility of a given kind of speech and whether its speaker deserves to live?

• On the post: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Didn’t Help Anyone

  

  Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2025 @ 01:05pm

  You may not be able to put it in writing, but it is worth having a clear line in mind of where the breaking point is.

  That’s part of the problem with trying to come up with one: The line will be different for everyone. Even if you could get someone with conservative beliefs to agree that shit like the Dade-Collier Concentration Camp shouldn’t exist, you’ll likely have a harder time of figuring out when violence becomes an appropriate response to the existence of that concentration camp. And even then, we’re talking about a concentration camp run by the federal government. If you take on the government and lose, you’ll end up either dead or in prison for life. I’m hesitant to endorse a strict “end of line, line ends here, go past that line and it’s time to start splitting skulls” notion for that reason. Also, as a sincere concession to you and those who would agree with you on this point: Yes, I do believe that we’re closer than ever to violence being on the table as a legitimate response to government malfeasance. I’m not looking forward to that day. Ideally, neither should anyone else. As the history of war has shown us, once a war is being fought, nowhere and no one is safe⁠—and I’d very much prefer to not have to wear a bulletproof vest while grocery shopping.

Next >>