Author Archives: Ket Garden

“Is Hate Speech Really Free Speech?”

Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights, yet it’s also one of the most misunderstood. Where do we draw the line between free expression and harassment? When mocking becomes humiliation, and jokes turn into attacks, dignity is lost. And dignity, just like freedom, is a human right.

Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights in democratic societies. It allows people to express thoughts, ideas, and beliefs publicly without fear of government censorship or punishment. This includes spoken words, written expression, art, and the exchange of information.

But freedom of speech is not absolute. A central question remains: Is hate speech really free speech, or does it cross into something else, harassment, abuse, and the violation of human dignity?

(Picture: Reflection: When Disrespect Becomes the Norm

The public treatment of leaders is a mirror of society’s values. Since 2016, we have seen how mockery and humiliation, like the “Trump balloon,” are used not to challenge policies, but to strip a person of dignity. Whether or not one agrees with Trump, the method of ridicule says more about us than about him.

When humiliation replaces respectful disagreement, it weakens the foundations of democracy. It creates a culture where harassment becomes normalized, spreading to schools, workplaces, and everyday life. If the West tolerates public harassment at the highest levels, how can we hope to eliminate bullying and harassment among teenagers?

Freedom of speech is not a license to abuse. A society that wants to survive and grow stronger must defend both freedom and dignity, because without dignity, freedom eventually collapses.)

The Limits of Free Speech

While free speech is widely protected, democratic societies do place boundaries on it. According to the First Amendment in the U.S. and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, restrictions are lawful when necessary to protect:

  • Public order
  • National security
  • Public health
  • The rights and reputations of others

Categories such as incitement to violence, true threats, defamation, obscenity, and fraud are not protected speech. In other words, freedom of speech is not a license to abuse.

When Speech Becomes Harassment

Harassment goes beyond free expression. It is a form of discrimination that involves unwanted, offensive, intimidating, or humiliating behavior. Examples include:

  • Derogatory jokes, racial or ethnic slurs
  • Unwanted comments about religion or appearance
  • Pressure for sexual favors
  • Offensive graffiti, cartoons, or images

Harassment can take different forms:

  1. Verbal or written (insults, threats, degrading comments)
  2. Physical (unwanted contact, intimidation)
  3. Visual (symbols, gestures, offensive imagery)

When harassment becomes repetitive, it turns into bullying, often leaving lasting emotional scars. At its worst, harassment and humiliation constitute psychological abuse and may even lead to criminal charges.

Freedom of Speech vs. Human Dignity

Here lies the conflict: freedom of speech is a right, but human dignity is also a right. Dignity means recognizing the intrinsic value of every human being and treating them with respect.

Mocking or humiliating people, whether powerful leaders or ordinary individuals, strips them of their dignity. It erodes respect. And if harassment is normalized at the highest levels of media and comedy, how can we expect young people in schools to learn respect and kindness?

A Question for Media and Comedians

Since 2016, comedians and media outlets have mocked, criticized, and even harassed the most powerful man on the planet. Some say it’s fair satire; others see it as relentless humiliation. But here’s the real issue: if harassment is accepted at the top of society, how can it be eliminated in classrooms, workplaces, or online communities?

The principle is simple: free speech must not become a weapon to degrade others.

Respect as the Foundation

Every person, regardless of power, status, or circumstance, deserves:

  • Respect: showing esteem for their humanity
  • Dignity: recognizing their inherent worth
  • Equality: treating all people fairly

Speech that destroys these values is not freedom—it’s abuse.

The Role of Platforms

In the digital era, platforms amplify speech through Section 230 protections in U.S. law, which shield platforms from being sued for user content. However, the responsibility ultimately lies with the individual: what you post online is your responsibility.

Social media can either become a space for respectful dialogue or a weapon of harassment. The choice belongs to us.

Conclusion

Free speech is vital to democracy, but it comes with responsibility. Hate speech, harassment, and humiliation are not the same as free expression; they are violations of dignity.

The way forward is not to silence voices, but to promote respect, reject harassment, and recognize that freedom without responsibility can lead to abuse.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Confronting Evil: What Bill O’Reilly’s Book Is Saying to the World

We are near World War III. We are all only seconds away from a disaster. Charlie Kirk was assassinated just like JFK. Is this a spiritual strategy? Are Demons among us? What world are we living in? When we examine history, we already know the world we are living in. History repeats itself. It`s a war between good and evil, and Bill O`Reilly wrote a book about evil.

Bill O’Reilly, together with Josh Hammer, takes on a complex subject in Confronting Evil: Assessing the Worst of the Worst. The book explores some of history’s most notorious figures and events, aiming not just to recount their crimes but to push readers toward moral reflection. Below is a breakdown of what the book covers, the deeper themes it conveys, and what it asks of its audience.

1. What the Book Is About

Confronting Evil surveys individuals, movements, and regimes that the authors consider among history’s most destructive, ranging from Genghis Khan and Caligula to Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khomeini, Vladimir Putin, and modern criminal enterprises such as the Mexican drug cartels.

Each chapter explores how these figures rose to power, the suffering they inflicted, and what their actions reveal about the human capacity for cruelty.

The book defines evil as deliberate harm against human beings, committed without remorse, and emphasizes that this reality has existed throughout history. From the biblical story of Cain and Abel to present-day conflicts.

2. Key Themes / Implicit Messages

Several themes run throughout the book:

  • Moral Absolutism: The authors assume there are clear moral standards by which actions can be judged as evil, mainly rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview.
  • Evil as Timeless: History demonstrates that evil is not confined to a single culture or era; it reemerges in different forms across the ages.
  • History as Teacher: Studying past atrocities equips us to recognize similar patterns in the present.
  • The Cost of Complacency: Good people who ignore or excuse evil allow it to grow unchecked.

3. What the Authors Want Readers to Do Right Now

O’Reilly and Hammer are not merely documenting villains; they are calling readers to action. The book pushes its audience to:

  • Be aware: Recognize evil in history and in today’s world.
  • Exercise judgment: Develop moral clarity to distinguish true evil from ordinary wrongdoing.
  • Reject passivity: Speak out, resist, and refuse to enable evil by silence.
  • Learn vigilance: Use historical knowledge as a safeguard against repetition.

4. What the Book Is Saying to the World

At its core, Confronting Evil delivers a stark message:

Evil is real, universal, and destructive. It has shaped human history and remains present today. The only way to prevent its spread is for ordinary people to recognize it, resist it, and act with courage. Inaction is itself a form of complicity.

The book speaks not just to historians or political analysts but to everyone, urging that moral clarity is essential in a world where complacency can have devastating consequences.

Conclusion

Confronting Evil is less a history book than a moral manifesto. By cataloging “the worst of the worst,” O’Reilly and Hammer remind readers that evil is not an abstraction. It is a lived reality, and its recurrence depends on whether we confront it or look the other way. The book’s challenge is timeless: when faced with evil, will we choose to act?

Let`s look at the timeline:

Evil has been a part of human history since the earliest recorded times. From ancient empires to modern dictatorships, from mass enslavement to genocides, each age has carried its own manifestations of cruelty. Bill O’Reilly’s book Confronting Evil: Assessing the Worst of the Worst underscores a sobering truth: evil is timeless, real, and destructive, and our responsibility is not to ignore it.

This article presents a broad timeline of some of history’s most infamous evils, woven together with the key message from O’Reilly’s work: that good people must recognize and resist evil rather than remain passive.

Ancient World (Before and Around Jesus)

  • Assyrian Empire (900–600 BCE): Brutal conquests, terror as state policy.
  • Roman Empire: Mass slavery, public executions, and crucifixion. Most famously, the crucifixion of Jesus (~30 CE).

Lesson: Even in civilizations admired for culture and progress, cruelty and systemic oppression thrived.

Middle Ages (500–1500 CE)

  • Crusades (1096–1291): Holy wars between Christians and Muslims resulting in massacres of civilians in Jerusalem and beyond.
  • Mongol Conquests (1206–1368): Millions killed under Genghis Khan. Destroyed entire cities.
  • Spanish Inquisition (from 1478): Torture and executions in the name of religion. Executions of Jews, Muslims, and heretics.
  • Black Death (from 1347 – 1351): Not an act of human evil (a plague), but responses included scapegoating and massacres of Jews in Europe.

Lesson: Religion and ideology, when abused, can justify widespread bloodshed.

Early Modern Period (1500–1800 CE)

  • Atlantic Slave Trade: Millions of Africans were enslaved and shipped across oceans.
  • Colonial Atrocities: Indigenous peoples across the Americas and beyond were decimated.
  • Witch Hunts: Tens of thousands tortured and killed across Europe and America.

Lesson: Systemic exploitation, fear, and superstition can fuel organized cruelty.

19th Century

  • Trail of Tears (1830s): Forced removal of Native Americans in the U.S.
  • Belgian Congo (1880s–1908): Millions died under King Leopold II’s regime.

Lesson: Greed and empire-building often came at the expense of human dignity and life.

20th Century

  • Armenian Genocide (1915–1916).
  • Stalin’s USSR (1920s–50s): Purges, gulags, famine.
  • Nazi Germany (1933–1945): Holocaust and World War II.
  • Mao’s China (1949–1976): Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution.
  • Cambodia (1975–1979): Khmer Rouge’s genocide.
  • Rwanda (1994): ~800,000 slaughtered in 100 days.
  • Balkan Wars (1990s): Ethnic cleansing and mass graves.

Lesson: The bloodiest century in human history proved how modern states and ideologies could amplify destruction on an industrial scale.

21st Century

  • 9/11 (2001): Terrorist attacks killed ~3,000.
  • Darfur (2003–2008): Ethnic killings in Sudan.
  • ISIS (2014–2019): Terror, genocide of Yazidis, global violence.
  • Syrian Civil War (2011–present): Massive civilian suffering and war crimes.
  • Mexican Drug Cartels (2000s–present): Violence, fear, and systemic corruption.
  • Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine (2022–present): War crimes and mass displacement.

Lesson: Evil persists in modern forms, such as terrorism, organized crime, and authoritarian aggression.

The Core Message: Why Confront Evil?

Bill O’Reilly’s Confronting Evil emphasizes three central truths:

  1. Evil is real and recurring. It is not confined to the past.
  2. History teaches vigilance. Understanding past atrocities helps us recognize patterns.
  3. Inaction enables evil. As John Stuart Mill warned: “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”

Conclusion

From ancient empires to today’s conflicts, history demonstrates that evil never disappears. It adapts. The challenge for every generation is to confront it, resist complacency, and act with moral clarity. The question O’Reilly leaves us with is timeless: will we shine a light on evil, or turn away and let it spread?

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Curiosity, Politics

Jesus and God: The Anchor in Times of Loss

At Charlie Kirk’s funeral, the atmosphere was heavy with grief, yet also charged with hope. Friends, family, and followers reflected on Kirk’s legacy, weaving together memories of his activism with deep expressions of faith.

What stood out most wasn’t politics or ideology. It was the repeated invocation of Jesus and God as the ultimate source of comfort.

When tens of thousands gathered to honor Charlie Kirk, it quickly became clear that the memorial was not merely about a man. It was about something far greater: faith in Jesus Christ and the eternal hope found in God.

(Picture: A golden sunrise breaking through clouds – symbolizing hope, resurrection, and God’s eternal light after darkness.)

Speakers reminded the congregation that Kirk’s life, though tragically cut short, was not the end of his story. “Charlie is watching from above,” one said, pointing to the Christian belief in eternal life. The message was clear: while death silences the body, the soul remains alive in the presence of God.

This belief is not abstract. The Bible itself reassures the grieving: “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more” (Revelation 21:4). Such promises shift the perspective from despair to hope, from loss to continuity.

The funeral also underlined a greater truth. That faith provides resilience when the world seems unbearable. Whether one personally shares this faith or not, the testimony of the mourners demonstrated how belief in God can transform sorrow into strength.

Speakers repeatedly returned to the same truth. Charlie’s life was grounded in the Gospel. His wife, Erika Kirk, delivered words that stunned many: “I forgive him because it is what Christ did, and it is what Charlie would do.” In those few sentences, she reminded the world that forgiveness is not a sign of weakness, but rather a divine strength.

Her words echoed Jesus Himself: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

The service emphasized that political ideology is not the ultimate solution for humanity’s struggles. As Tucker Carlson boldly put it, “The real solution is Jesus, not politics.” Senator Marco Rubio also spoke of salvation history, pointing to Christ’s suffering, death, resurrection, and promised return.

These are not abstract ideas. They are the very heartbeat of Christianity. Charlie Kirk’s friends and loved ones testified that his mission was not only to debate culture and politics but also to lead people to Christ.

He wanted to save young men from despair, hatred, and sin, pointing them to a better path in God.

Faith also framed the way people spoke about Charlie’s death. Again and again came the assurance that he is “watching from above.” That his soul is in the hands of God. This belief brought comfort to thousands, serving as a reminder that life is more than what we see.

Ultimately, the memorial turned into a proclamation: Jesus is Lord, God is faithful, and forgiveness is possible even in the darkest hour.

The takeaway is simple but profound: human leaders rise and fall, tragedies strike without warning, but God remains constant. In the words of Christ:

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Charlie Kirk’s life and death are now a testimony to that truth.

Many people around the world don’t believe. Many are sceptical, and perhaps the deepest response to skepticism about faith comes not from a preacher, but from psychiatrist Carl Jung himself. He had a lot of clients and saw things ordinary people didn`t see.

When asked if he believed in God, Jung replied: “Believe? I know!”

That certainty. The unshakable conviction that God is real was the foundation of Charlie Kirk’s life and mission. It is also the hope that sustains millions today.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

The Price of Justice, and the Power of Forgiveness

Broken people break others. Can society heal by punishing… or by forgiving? When the one who destroys is themselves destroyed — what does that say about us all?

In the wake of horrific crimes, society often faces a fundamental question:
Should justice focus solely on punishment — or is there still room for forgiveness?

The recent case of Tyler Robinson, who may face the death penalty or even execution by firing squad, has reignited this debate. Many argue that the harshest penalties are necessary to deter future crimes — that without serious consequences, there is little to lose, and therefore little reason for criminals to refrain from committing crimes. Harsh punishment, they say, is the only language that some will understand.

And yet, history gives us a radically different perspective.

(Picture: Jesus said; «Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.» – Luke 23:34, while being crucified. It represents an act of extreme mercy and forgiveness, where Jesus intercedes for the people responsible for his suffering and death, including the soldiers, religious leaders, and the crowd who mocked him).

In 1981, Pope John Paul II was shot and critically wounded by Mehmet Ali Ağca, a terrorist from Turkey. Against all expectations, the Pope survived. But what shocked the world even more was what he did later:
He visited his would-be assassin in prison, spoke with him privately, and forgave him.

John Paul’s forgiveness did not erase the crime. Ağca still had to serve many years in prison. But the Pope’s act sent a powerful message:
Forgiveness does not mean removing justice — it means choosing mercy in the midst of justice.

This raises a haunting question about Robinson’s case:
What if someone close to the victims were to forgive him?
It would not mean he walks free. It would not mean society abandons justice. But it would show that even in the face of darkness, the human heart can choose light.

At the same time, we must dare to face an uncomfortable truth:
Those who kill are often deeply broken. Healthy minds do not commit such acts.
Those who destroy are often themselves destroyed — products of trauma, neglect, and a world that failed to heal them.
In this sense, every such tragedy is not just about one person, but a mirror of the society that shaped them.

Because in any society, the dynamics of human relationships follow a simple truth:
1. Those who are treated well often become well.
2. Those who are treated badly often become bad.

So simple — and yet so profound.
We are all in the same boat.

Justice protects society.
Forgiveness heals souls.
But prevention and compassion may heal society itself.

“Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” — Jesus (Luke 6:37)

And maybe one day, we will learn:
To heal the world, we must first heal each other.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Freedom of Speech or Freedom to Offend? — The Kimmel Controversy

Jimmy Kimmel’s mocking remarks about Donald Trump’s grief after Charlie Kirk’s assassination have ignited a firestorm.
But this is about more than one comedian — it’s about how freedom of speech has turned into a demand for emotional performance, and how public debate is losing sight of responsibility.

When Jimmy Kimmel joked that Donald Trump’s grief “is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish,” the audience laughed, but the backlash came fast and hard. Kimmel was swiftly pulled off the air, and for many, this marked a turning point.

Critics argued that his remarks were cruel, mocking genuine human grief over the murder of a public figure. Supporters defended him, claiming it was just a joke and was protected under freedom of speech.

But this controversy goes deeper than a single comment. It highlights how the concept of freedom of speech is being stretched, sometimes misused, as a shield for abuse, ridicule, and dehumanization.

Freedom of speech is not a license to abuse

I wrote an article about Freedom of speech seven years ago, and I feel that I have a responsibility to repeat myself because this is so important. This is what I wrote:
“Freedom of speech is NOT a license to abuse — it is a responsibility.”

Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents. England’s Bill of Rights (1680) legally established the constitutional right of freedom of speech in Parliament, which is still in effect.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right. Article 11 states:

“The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

This principle is crucial. Freedom of speech was never meant to protect cruelty, slander, or targeted emotional harm. It was meant to protect debate, dissent, and the free exchange of ideas. Rights come with duties. Speech comes with consequences.

A pattern of public shaming

This is not the first time the media have been accused of demanding emotional performances and punishing anyone who doesn’t meet the script.

When Princess Diana died in 1997, Queen Elizabeth was heavily criticized by the press for not showing enough visible grief. Headlines branded her as cold and emotionless, forcing her to make a public display of mourning just to silence the criticism.

The same pattern can be seen now:
If you don’t grieve the “right way,” or if someone mocks how you grieve, it becomes a public scandal. Public emotions are staged, judged, and weaponized. And comedians, who once pushed boundaries, now risk being used as tools in that system. (Is this part of the Matrix system I wrote about in my previous article?).

The line between humor and harm

Comedy has always been about testing limits. But there’s a difference between punching up and punching down, between provoking thought and ridiculing someone’s suffering.

Mocking grief is not clever social commentary. It’s cruelty. And when it becomes normalized, it contributes to a culture where empathy is seen as weakness and cruelty is seen as courage.

Freedom of speech should protect the right to speak the truth, not the right to hurt for entertainment.

A responsibility, not a weapon

This is the lesson the Kimmel controversy should teach us.
Speech is powerful. It shapes societies, moves crowds, inspires revolutions, or sparks hatred.

We must remember: Freedom of speech is not just a right. It is a responsibility.
Because if freedom becomes a weapon, it will eventually destroy the very societies built to protect it.

We’re not just standing at a crossroad. We’re standing on the threshold of a new era. Those who dare to seize the future will shape it. Those who hesitate will live in the shadow of those who didn’t.”

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics