Tucker Carlson says Trump admin using Charlie Kirk’s killing to trample free speech
So I'm assuming that Sinclair will be demanding that Tucker apologize and donate and that the FCC will be threatening to cancel his podcast.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tucker-carlson-charlie-kirk-free-speech-b2829145.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world768
Comments112
I am floored that I agree with that piece of shit, but… here we are.
What a weird time to live in.
Tucker is scared because kimmel and other media personalities are getting nuked. That's his money flow at risk, nothing else.
Ya know there a principle I am rather fond of, doing good for bad reasons is still good. While Carlson may be a shitstain undeserving of his kneecaps and while he may be doing a good thing for bad reasons, well I'll take what I can get. We are effectively shrieking into the void like the banshee outside of my window, nobody hears us but they do hear Carlson.
Probably, but it's smart to take allies where you can find them. A lot of right-wingers pay attention to Carlson, and his stance is hitting where left-leaning sources have no pull.
Plus if successful at turning us from our allies based on misplaced motivation, they would just lie about those motivations more to us. Then lie to the other side about our own motivations for stuff we agree with them on.
While his general rhetoric may be aligned, his engagement is driven by people that want validation against those "elite libs" that are saying things they don't like.
Without those voices in the room, even if there's an audience that agrees with his words, that audience doesn't need him anymare.
He came out in opposition to the Iranian war and was given Ted Cruz the fuck you treatment calling him a dumbass on it. I think that was before Colbert got fired.
If he was scared, he would have kept his mouth shut. This is praiseworthy
Similar thing for me recently. Learned musk is against collective shouts censorship. Made me really evaluate why I was against it. Still against it. Censorship limits freedom of speech but so does deplatforming the censors. Weird times
Sure, but sometimes the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy. I agree with this one thing that Tucker said. I vehemently disagree with pretty much every single other thing he says, or has said.
Yeah same in my situation basically. Also he wants to harass and censor collective shout. It's not the right way to address this. ACLU already looking into financial censorship and payment procssors. That's the way I want it handled. Legally and sanely
The grammar is ambiguous, FYI, of if you meant the censorship done by collective shout or the censorship being done to collective shout.
It doesn't impact my reply, but I figured I'd let you know. :)
I'm against government censorship in all circumstances outside the cliche "you can't threaten people or spread injurious falsehoods".
I'm okay with private entities not giving people a platform if they aren't a defacto institution. Credit card companies and financial services should be agnostic to which legal businesses they process payments and hold assets for. Much like how shipping companies are agnostic to what's in your package, beyond what's necessary to move it safely.
If you're needed for society to function, I want you to blindly service society, even if people I dislike also get service.
I don't want to be in a place where every platform needs to accept all participants as valid. There's plenty of ways to share your viewpoint.
That ignores the fact that the government leans on these people behind the scenes. So it is a thinly veiled end run around government censorship, as we have seen with social media, Homeland Security giving lists of names for them to ban for other reasons.
I wouldn't say it's ignoring it. I'm incredulous that DHS would pressure Facebook to cancel an account or something for the same reason I'm not as bothered by it happening: it doesn't have real consequences.
If the government censors you, it can take your money or your freedom. Not only does it have much higher stakes, it has stakes you can't get around. You can't go to a platform that doesn't mind and keep going.
If the government leans on a company, first of all that's still government censorship and it's not legal for the government to get a company to do what it cannot. If the specifics of the behavior are legal, it's still government censorship and wrong (with aforementioned caveats).
That being said, the consequence of that type of censorship is loss of a social media account. You can find another venue and all they can do is keep asking people to remove the content. If someone refuses or you host overseas, there's not really anything they can do.
There's a benefit to society, in my opinion, for people to reject an idea. Refusing to help someone spread a message is about the most passive way to do that.
I've worked in the webhosting industry. If someone has a Nazi website and they need tech support, you need to ask yourself if you're willing to take that support request or if you're letting your manager know you're not gonna help that message.
If the employees at a company don't want to help you and it's not unjust discrimination, I have a really hard time saying that it's wrong to tell Nazis to take their website elsewhere.
I agree 100% Sorry I was ambiguous in my last reply. I am against all censorship both by and against collective shout
I don't think censoring collective shout helps any of this
I'm not aware of the specifics of that group to know how I feel.
My feelings are more born from looking at webhosting and hate/harassment websites. I have a really hard time saying it's wrong to take down a Nazi website.
I don't think the government should be able to, because as abhorrent as it is it's still a political position and protected. But if the people you're paying to host your shit don't want anything to do with you and it's not unjust discrimination, I don't think society gains anything by forcing them to keep it up.
I also don't think that applies to monopolies, quasi or defacto.
I think there's a benefit to telling hateful groups and people they aren't welcome in civil society. The alternative is to say that there's no line at which society can tell you to gtfo, and people just need to tolerate you no matter what.
Shunning or deplatforming is how you do that without violence.
I was just thinking this is the perfect meme in this context.
Not only a good point... He dared to go against supreme leader, despite his much he normally licks boots, and when other more moderate people are licking boot about all this
I'm confused, but happy to see it.
What fucking bizarro world have I stepped into where fash-lite bowtie man is making sense
I've noticed this happening more often than I would have imagined, actually. There are some times where Trump or one of his sycophants will make an off-the-cuff remark that is actually, genuinely, a good and logical thing to do. it doesn't happen that often, but it does happen. The bizarre part is that when that idea fails to manifest media coverage detailing how bad it is, they just... give up on it. It's like the conservative political philosophy has completely morphed into being a contrarian force against liberalism, in spite of whatever their personal beliefs might be. If democrats are ambivalent on an issue, so are they.
Tucker's a smart guy with a clever tongue. He can lay out an exhaustive, reasoned, rationalist case for basic civil liberties. And then he can come back a day later to lay out an exhaustive, reasoned, rationalist case against them.
Just depends on which side of the line he's standing. Dude's a talk radio mercenary. He'll fight for whichever side he thinks will turn him a profit.
No, Tucker Carlson, the guy who tells idiots what they want to hear.
He was full strength fashy before 2021. He was the one floating a lot of these ideas to see how they play, like locking up your political rivals or news media.
I suspect that it turned out that Carlson's mean words towards his superiors at Fox News did him in more than anything. They held grudges after being called dumb fucking cunts or whatever and took the excuse to ask him.
This comment is almost entirely divorced from reality. Just as bad as the nonsense that trumper dipshits spew. Ben fucking Shapiro has spoke out against US involvement in the Middle East? Lol, pretty much his sole life mission is to ensure that that continues. Gtfo with this shit.
Some people have "Russia Russia Russia" as their core identity. It's a fact-free flight of fancy.
Gotta maintain that echo chamber. Have fun with absolutely fucked world you're helping to create.
i wonder what your response will be once you learn that marjoree taylor green has tried to stop weapons shipments to isreal, but aoc helped stop her... twice
AOC voted to stop the amendment but voted no on the actual bill.
Sounds like there's a host of details you're leaving out.
But then that's a classic Tucker trope.
Huh, whatever happened to loving how things are done in Putinist Russia, Tucker?
"Finally! I've finished my kill-bot. Come, gather round, as I unveil it to the world"
"But Professor Killington"
"Yes, adorable, one-legged, orphan Timmy?"
"Why did you make a kill-bot?"
"Well, so it would indiscriminately murder anything and everything that moves, of course"
"But professor, that sounds dangerous"
"Don't be a fucking retard Timmy. I know what I'm doing"
"O-okay Professor"
"Now everyone gather round as I turn on the killbot for the very first time, and be amazed as it makes me pancakes"
flips switch
"OH NO, STOP, STOP, STOP KILLING ME, KILL-BOT OH MY GOD, MY SPLEEN, OH, IF ONLY SOMEBODY COULD HAVE FORRSEEN THIS TERRIBLE TURN OF EVENTS".
Timmy would go on to run for Congress on an anti killbot policy. He would lose to a bigoted blowhard who insisted on the right for all people to own killbots to make them pancakes.
Had I more upvotes to give...
He just realized that he is NOT SAFE
Not since Trump flipped on Russia (again). Maybe he'll feel safer after another Alaska Summit.
Ugh Fucker Carlson making sense. I hate this world.
Guess someone forgot to send tucker his check.
So now he cares about such principles...
Only when it has the potential to impact him personally.
Interesting. I don't know who he is, but based on (part of) the Russian shopping video I saw of him yesterday, where he was excited at what everything a Russian supermarket has to offer, finally cumming into his pants after finding that Russia has bread, I wouldn't expect much.
I only saw a clip of that. In the piece, did he ever disclose how much a typical Russian makes in a year?
Someone did detail that information and response and he had spent like more than a Russian makes in a month at that grocery store, which is geared for the Bourgeois there. Not a working man's store.
Awesome. Thanks.
Kudos for the rapid fire response too.
OMG they have Whole Foods in Russia?!?
The best part of that video is how he is amazed at coin locked shopping carts. Clearly he has never been in a grocery store.
Nope. Too busy fucking a dark rye bagel.
Russia has bread? Lucky ducks.
You might enjoy this video to understand how long this chuckle fuck had been around being a douche https://youtu.be/aFQFB5YpDZE
And this one is just historical context for the bread video you mentioned
https://youtu.be/2-ZkkI4lma0
A broken Nazi Russian asset asshole clock is right once a day
Trump has actually said critical stuff of Putin lately, maybe Tucker got a bit of marching orders to stir shit up?
Now we're just lying to ourselves.
They keep wanting a civil war between leftwingers and rightwingers, but seems more likely they will have a civil war amongst the rightwingers themselves. 🤦♂️
Could well happen yeah. Though it also seems likely, given how things have gone so far, that an assassin could be on camera with a Nazi swastika on their clothes and immediately after you'd have the right wing media spreading far and wide, "Here's how the Nazis (National SOCIALISTS) were leftists, actually"
Maybe some shit about Nazis being pro trans too, I dunno. At this point it feels like they could actually say that and enough people would lap it up
They already do say that.
Yeah true to an extent, of course, but I mean them going full on with it like they did with claiming the Charlie Kirk assassin was a leftist and trying to link him to transness in any way possible
No, stop, don’t.
Popcorn.gif
Holy shit I agree with Tucker Carlson?
Good for Tucker. Rare time I say it.
Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point
I Hate This Timeline.
I agreed with Cucker Tarlson and Marge Sporktoes on things! Wtf???
This man doesn't actually meaningfully believe anything that he says. That said, what he is saying here is true.
Area, Man!
Holy shit, Tucker dares to go against Trump.
It's something all the right wing grifters will realize at some point.
These people have no purpose if Trump forces all the news networks in the country to say whatever he wants. He no longer requires any of their services as mouthpieces.
I think Charlie Kirk ironically would be the first one to balk at the supression of leftist rhetoric.
Without opposition looking to make him look like an asshat while he thinks he's making them look like an asshat, these pundits lose their 'edge'. They have nothing to rant against, and without ranting, what's their draw, how do they make a living being right wing assholes that don't actually do anything or have to take accountability for anything?
Did his funding change? Why all the sudden change? You got the fucker there.
Carlson's livelihood is trolling. Harder to troll if no counterpoint is allowed to be heard.
If he ends up getting Kirked over this, I'll gladly nudge him over the line to "on the right side of history". Won't mourn his passing though, he's peddled enough bullshit to make himself irredeemable as decent human being.
I wouldn’t nudge him
https://generalstrikeus.com/
That website is an op
Please elaborate
There's no such thing as a "strike card".
You don't need to give anybody your name and phone number to join a strike or engage in protest. Why are they demanding sign-ups at all? Why do they need my personal identifying information? If it's a strike, name the day and time.
Who's behind this website? It's very unclear ("two friends") but also The Black Panther Party? This seems sus, like media ragebait for a future FOX News story
My first clue: the site is all a little TOO slick
This is either conservative ragebait or everyone will be signed up for some Organizing for America spam list. Worst case, you'll be on an FBI list and named as an "economic terrorist" or some bullshit
Could I wrong about all this? Sure, and I'll wish them luck and success, but they sure as shit ain't getting my identifying information
What makes you say that?
See my reply to another commenter
I never thought I'd see the day where I agree with Fucker Carlson. Jesus.
Ahw fuck, why does it have to be Carlson? I hate it when dumb evil mother fuckers like him make actual good point
LOL, no shit Tucker!
Your kind ALWAYS wanted to do that, no matter what the excuse is.
That's the thing with fascism. They believe it's never going to come after them until it is coming after them. Tucker must see some writing on the wall.
And a broken watch is correct twice a day.
They'll come for him soon enough.
Oh NOW he's gone too far?? Fuck. You.
Yeah it would really be a shame if free speech were to be trampled at some nebulous point in the future. Imagine if it were to happen now!
The most justified possible cause for civil disobedience in all of human history has been and will only ever be... hate speech laws. Jeez. I'm a white guy and even that level of privilege and arrogance is a little crazy.
He seems so close to getting it. So damn close. But considering the right's propensity for projection, it's probably just an illusion.
Double post!
Double comment!
Double response!
Yeah this instance is having some server issues today resulting in me double posting.
How do you know Tucker Carlson is grifting? His lips are moving. Be careful, fellas. You know who this goon is. Just because you agree with him, doesnt mean there isnt an agenda at play with this fucker.
Whhaattttt?
Stating the obvious to hoard in people... While still being a fascist himself. Who could have seen this coming...
For the love of god, would you guys learn what the FCC actually does and who they have jurisdiction over. People keep talking about how hypocritical they are that they don't go after Fox News, Tucker Carlson's podcast, Blaze Radio... Guys! The FCC regulates public broadcast license holders. They do not regulate cable news shows, satellite radio, Spotify, or any other premium, private media source.
Is the FCC head a partisan hack, a complete hypocrite, and weilding his authority to cudgel those who express protected speech he doesnt like? Absolutely. By all means, be critical of that. But stop whatabouting things that he literally could not regulate even if he wanted to. You are making criticism over this sound ignorant AF.
You’re right on the technical points, but you’re completely missing the larger reality, which is corporate and media consolidation. There are a lot of business interests that include some subsidiaries that are subject to the FCC’s regulation, and other subsidiaries that are not. The point is, members of this administration are exerting extortionate pressures that don’t happen in a vacuum.
No one is coming at this with anywhere near any nuance. They're just throwing around complaints that they arent doing the same thing to people on their side even when they dont have any control over them anyway.
It would be like a police cheif cracking down on black drug users in Birmingham Alabama, and then complaining that they dont do the same to the white drug users in New Jersey. Like you are right to criticize the action, but the insinuation that they are responsible for something else that is beyond their direct control is just dumb.
You’re using different words to repeat yourself without actually addressing the flaw in your argument: it misses the larger picture.
I didn't want to reply to the dense troll so I'm answering you instead.
Do you find it ironic that the commentator is using drugs at an example when we literally in the 80's and 90's where we literally had people, including those in law enforcement, advocate how morally wrong it was for harsh punishment against African Americans for crack but let off White people for cocaine, literally the same drug.
Then elaborate, what does the FCC have to do with Tucker Carlson's podcast?
Man, you really missed the point and went down the path of Poe.
How did I miss the point? I agree completely that Carr is a fuck head that is using his power to attack free speech he disagrees with and doing Trump's bidding regardless of legality and reason. We're not in dispute there so I didnt comment on it. But you and others are under a weird delusion about the FCC's power. You're far from the only one posting snide remarks about the FCC not coming after people they dont have the power to come after.
Dude, the entire administration has been threatening everyone and everything regardless of if it's in their jurisdiction or if it's constitutionally protected, if it's illegal. For fucks sake, you have Pam Bondi going off about prosecuting the clerk who refused to print up a poster glorifying Charlie Kirk and prosecuting people for hate speech for saying Charlie Kirk was a bad, bad man.
You're ill in the head if you think that my tongue and cheek comment that the FCC should be threatening Tucker with cancel culture, which he should by the way if he's not a hypocritical twat, and that we don't understand that the FCC has no power of youtube. Do you think that when I say that "Pam Bondi needs to prosecute Tucker for hate speech" that I truly think that Pam Bondi has the power and the legal right to prosecute Tucker here?
Go touch grass dude, you've been Poe'd.
All else aside, "You've ben Poe'd" as a response to someone replying to your own comment is really lame. "Dude, I made a sarcastic comment in text form and you treated it like I was serious, idiot!" isn't the burn you think it is.
Don't really care what you think. Welcome to the internet where the facts are all made up and the points don't matter. Have a good day.
They are the regulator for cable TV and therefore do regulate cable news shows. https://www.fcc.gov/media/engineering/cable-television
They have regulatory power primarily over the technical aspects of cable tv, not the content.
From the same fcc.gov website you just linked to:
Source: The FCC and Speech | Federal Communications Commission https://share.google/p4X1DUg5q3a8F1jC6
Edit: @downvoters, am I fucking wrong? Your citation is right there, right from the horse's mouth, the government website of the FCC itself. Go on and be pissy about it I guess, but you're acting like children.
The FCC does for example prohibit "obscenity" — not profanity — on cable. No doubt it is mentioned somewhere on their website.
It does. That is one of the very limit content regulatory powers it has over cable tv. "Obsenity" is a very high bar, though, and is, itself, not protected speech under the 1st Amendment at all.
To be considered obscene, it must meet a three-pronged test from the Supreme Court:
Basically Brian Kilmeade can't show his gaping asshole taking a dump on Fix & Friends. But he can casually suggest euthanizing the homeless population and it's out of the FCC's hand.
Do you honestly think something as trivial as jurisdiction is going to stop them?
Toilet paper is more respected than your Constitution. Stop expecting 'the law' to protect you from those that write and enforce the law.
Well that's a dumb take. You're suggesting that those criticizing the hypocrisy of his actions taken under the law are then saying he should break the law to go against his own partisan side to make it fair. That just makes us sound even more ignorant.
Jimmy Kimmel isn't being silenced by the FCC, he's being silenced by Sinclair.
Except he is being silenced by the FCC too since Carr, in his official capacity as FCC Chairman, made the remarks,
and
Also, FCC Chair Carr says 'we're not done yet' after Jimmy Kimmel suspension by ABC
Correct. FCC threatens broadcast license. Sinclair superceeded the show. ABC network was threatened on two fronts and capitulated to save their jobs.
The reason this is a big deal is that this isn’t some kind of court of public opinion, like being fired for saying we should exterminate homeless people with lethal injection (oh wait), this is literally the president of the United States coercing censorship of a major broadcaster. Pure 1A violation.
It’s funny because if Trump had backchanneled this and kept his mouth shut this would be much harder to prove. But he just…he just said it on live TV.
I'm aware.