Watch: The fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk has become a flashpoint in Britain's already contentious debate over free speech. WSJ's David Luhnow explains the U.K.'s struggle to define the boundaries of acceptable discourse. https://t.co/pYQallGebr ...

Good evening from New York. I'm Chris Hayes. When Steven Kber announced that his late night show was being cancelled back in July, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, had a chilling reaction.>> Fallon has no talent. Kimmel has no talent. They're next. They're going to be going. I hear they're going to be going.I don't know, but I would imagine because they get, you know, Co Bear has better ratings than Kimmel or Fallon. You know that >> they're next. I hear they're going to be going.Well, toni ...

there's sort of been this crackdown on people uh within the administration at at the government level. We're also though seeing it it widespread people's lives and jobs being impacted based on how they reacted things that they shared. What do you make of that.What does that ultimately mean for free speech and and is there any legal protections if that happens to someone. >> Free speech doesn't come into play if a private employer terminates someone for something they post on social media. The only thing the ...

whole reaction surrounding it about free speech. Um there there's sort of been this crackdown on people uh within the administration at the government level. We're also though seeing it it widespread um people's lives and jobs being impacted based on how they reacted, things that they shared.Uh what do you make of that. What does that ultimately mean for free speech and and is there any legal protections if that happens to someone. >> Yeah, I'm hearing a lot about this and really people are very divided.You ...

Free Speech Debate - The report highlights a controversy surrounding Attorney General Pam Bondi's stance on hate speech, suggesting the Department of Justice would target those engaging in it [1] - Critics, including conservatives and free speech advocates, argue that so-called hate speech is protected by the First Amendment [1][2] - The debate extends to discussions about censorship, disfavored viewpoints, and the legal definition of hate speech in America [1][2] Political Reactions and Implications - President Trump's response to Bondi's remarks is described as a stream of consciousness, shifting from a fighter mode to a concierge approach [5] - The report suggests that the administration's reaction to the Charlie Kirk assassination is being used as a lever of power [12] - Concerns are raised about the potential weaponization of government to target organizations viewed as leftist [9] Media and Public Discourse - The report mentions ABC paying $16 million for a form of hate speech, raising questions about media responsibility [3] - The free press is commended for warning against the dangers of suppressing speech [8] - The discussion extends to battles on college campuses regarding speech codes and politically protected speech [9] Potential Consequences - Concerns are raised about a slippery slope, where a stupid thing said by an attorney general quickly escalates to extreme measures [7] - The report suggests that individuals may face consequences for saying things deemed inappropriate, including being reported to their bosses and potentially fired [10][15] - The legacy of Charlie Kirk is discussed in the context of free speech, with concerns that Bondi's actions threaten that legacy [14][15]

Political Targeting & Free Speech Concerns - The Trump administration is broadening its "enemies list" to include those to the left of the administration [1] - The administration aims to target broader swaths of the political left, using Charlie Kirk's death as a pretext [4] - The administration's definition of "hate speech" and its potential outlawing raises concerns about free speech [8] - Concerns grow as the White House targets rhetoric following Kirk's killing, with officials vowing crackdowns on left-leaning groups [10] Data & Evidence - The Vice President claimed that people on the left are more likely to defend and celebrate political violence, but this claim is disputed [2] - A Justice Department study, which found that far-right attacks outpace other types of terrorism, was removed from their website [3] Administration's Actions & Rhetoric - The Attorney General stated the intention to target anyone expressing hate speech [6] - Trump defines unfair treatment as hate, potentially including anyone who doesn't praise him [9] - Despite adding names to the "enemies list," the administration has struggled to silence those already on it [11]

Amid the problems facing the country today, President Trump filed a new lawsuit against the New York Times for articles in a book that he thinks was unfairly negative towards him. He claims there were deliberate falsehoods about him and that also they did not note his successes. As a company, the New York Times is worth about $9 billion.Trump's lawyers claim to be seeking the madeup number of $15 billion. That is, for context, larger than the largest liel ruling ever. But if they did win that number, it wou ...

Free speech doesn't allow you to go online and broom a child for sexual >> No, it does not. >> Okay. Free speech doesn't allow you to go on the internet and basically incite somebody to kill another person, right.>> Absolutely not. >> So, if it's illegal offline, it should be illegal online. Agreed.Whatever the law is. >> Yes, sir. >> Just because you're online doesn't give you a get out of jail free card.>> No, sir. So if a parent is worried about a child being bullied on a website, what rights do they hav ...

Uh, President Trump says he is suing the New York Times for $15 billion dollar over claims of defamation and liel. He announced the move on social media, writing in part, "The Times has engaged in a decadesl long method of lying about your favorite president, me, my family, business, the America first movement, MAGA, and our nation as a whole." This comes almost a week after Trump threatened legal action over against the paper over a report alleging he had sent a sexually suggestive note to Jeffrey Epstein ...

Political Violence & Radicalization - The report suggests individuals become radicalized online, leading to political violence [1][2][3] - The report claims one side (the left) has a much bigger and malignant problem regarding political violence [4] - The report mentions a statistical fact that most of the lunatics in American politics today are proud members of the far left [5] - The report indicates a plan to dismantle terrorist networks and organized campaigns that incite violence [7][8] Double Standards & Political Division - The report highlights a perceived double standard in responses to political violence, citing the case of Melissa Hortman [9][10] - The report criticizes the use of Charlie Kirk's death for political gain [28] - The report expresses concern over the politicization of tragedies and the hope in some circles that the shooter was from the other side [29][30] Free Speech & Civility - The report emphasizes the importance of free speech and civility in political discourse [6][12][26] - The report condemns celebrating political violence and brushing aside violence against the other side [18]