Conservative activist Charlie Kirk murdered in Utah

[Tober]

IcaroRibeiro said:

Tober said:

We don't know the motivation of the killer. Perhaps Kirk slept with someone's wife and it was an act of revenge. But it is likely it was a political assassination which would make it even worse, because that transcends to punishment for thinking differently.

The backbone of a democracy is the free market of ideas and opinions. That is what free speech is all about. It's a market where different messages compete, it is a market where the most popular idea and/or the best messaging wins. And that is how it should be. People choose what message to follow, it should not be dictated to them.

If you did not agree with Kirk's messaging, or any one else's for that matter, then engage with them on that market place. If you think you cannot win, then either the messaging, the message or both are not strong enough. Resorting to a bullet just shows that. That is true no matter on what political isle one is sitting.

A "perfect democracy" with absolute free speech as a system is flawed in a sense people can collectively advertise an idea for the extinction of the democracy. Remember nazist party ascended through popular vote

What is the majority vote against free speech itself? Or to criminalize minority opinion i.e. extinction of opposition. Those cases might not be the extinction of a democracy as a system as people will still have the right to vote and decide, but it effectively leads to at least flawed system or, at worst, a single-party dictatorship in disguise 

TLDR: Free speech and democracy as you suggest are a fantasy, a romantic view about politics not grounded in reality 

So what are you suggesting? Who would decide where to lay the boundaries other then the people collectively themselves?

How do people decide those boundaries other then listing to idea's and make up their mind? If not privy to all idea's, how to make a balanced judgement call?

Yes the Nationalist Socialist Party in Germany came to power by popular vote. Why? Because the competition did not have the more convincing messages and messaging to solve the economic troubles of a demoralized Germany at the time. Nobody had a fortune teller at hand prior to those elections to know what it would end up as.

In retrospect, who would have needed to decide that the Nazi party at the time should be expelled from the elections or not given space to campaign? Remove them from the people's choice with no crystal ball at hand?

Yes, sometimes democratic processes can go very wrong. But it is the least flawed system with the hope of the best outcome.