Tucker Carlson out at Fox News

I disagree, even irresponsible speech is and should be free. Up to the point that it will incite violence, on purpose.

What some here think however, is anyone is allowed to spread any and all kinds of speech and any and all kinds of platforms they want to.
Forgetting that there are platforms that won't tolerate certain types of speech and won't allow it. Any non gov't platform has the same right to speech as anyone else and are not subject to allow any and all forms of speech.
IOW, they get to use their free speech rights to not allow those who speak against their own beliefs to use their private platforms.

The simple way of stating it, I thought, was to put it as, you can say anything you want, but you don't have the right to use other people's property to spread it.

 

Tucker Carlson speaks more truth than the whole nation.

 

Why, he won't make much money doing it that way.
Got to feed the hungry to make money.

 

I agree.
The sad part, is we the people elect those people to those parties/party.
I have often said, the 2 parties are 2 sides of the same coin.
They know they have the control on how things run. Yet, we the people keep reelecting them over and over.
I know the scales are tipped to incumbents, but people need to pay attention.

It's always the other guy that's the problem.

In Carlson's case, he promoted lies and never addressed the issue of the 2 party control.
He wasn't in it to inform people, he was in it for money by feeding people nonsense they wanted to hear.

 

Unfortunately he did that in private.
In public, he promoted conspiracy theories.

 

Prayer talk and independent thinking is detrimental to the elite class.

 

Murdoch thought so, eh?

 

The entire system is corrupt. I don't care who people vote for once they get to Washington they learn they must toe the party line. This country is ran by the deep state which is not a secret organization by permanent Washington bureaucrats and retired military who receive high level jobs with the MIC

 

I don't recall him making statements that can be considered conspiracy theories.

 

Actually Carlson wasn't tip of the spear. Those folks still work for Fox. It's pretty well known Murdoch despises religion. Tucker and Murdoch's fianc'e had a conversation about religion which both enjoyed except Murdoch. Shortly after that Murdoch got rid of his fianc'e.

 

agreed. Hopefully going forward he uses his large audience and popularity to start public awareness to what is actually going on, rather than push the lies and agendas of the MSM network he was working for. Maybe what happened to him ends up being a great service to American consciousness. Maybe that’s wishful thinking, but I’ll keep my fingers crossed.

 

yep, in those private emails.... course not to his audience

 

If the entire system is corrupt, then the voters are to blame.
We elect our representatives.

Maybe we should vote out all incumbents all the time? But that won't happen.
We all love the person we vote for, most of them because they carry the proper letter behind their name. D or R.

 

I doubt it.
IMO, he knew exactly what he was doing. He knew the buttons to push. He did it for himself and not the best of the country.

He was pushing his own lies, his network just allowed it because he was a cash cow. Until they crossed a big line and started to lie about a USA company and settled with them for lying about that company.
There's other suits to follow for pushing those lies.

Carlson and Fox, both crossed the line of journalism into a National Enquirer type rag.

 

I think a big portion is the lie that is pushed that if you don’t vote for one of the two parties, you are wasting your vote. If everyone refuses to vote for either of the two parties and votes for independents, things will change quick. Or, it doesn’t even need to be everybody, just a large enough amount to break up the current power monopoly of the 2 party (that is actually 1 party) system.

 

I guess you missed the Dominion lawsuit then.

 

You are not being honest here and are diverting.

Now we are getting warmer.

Screw feelings, people get over that

Now you are talking. How do we "select" and punish the offenders?

 

I often voted 3rd party. Especially at the National level.
In essence, still at this point in time, you are wasting your vote on 3rd party. By the design of the 2 party system.
I agree, the 2 parties are 2 sides of the same coin.

I's do make up a larger portion, I think, that either of the 2 parties do right now.
But getting all the I's to vote in unison is the problem at this time.

Incumbents, by design, have a near monopoly on the electoral system. Money and media.
It's something like 93% of incumbents win?
Even with a congress approval of 25%. What does that tell someone?

 

Because the ONLY guy (according to you) worth watching on any cable new network is the worst of the worst.

 

Not all such speech - yelling fire in crowded theater .. the standard caveats ... other than that .. Yes .. 100% .. completely I support freedom for telling fairy tales to Children .. keeping the Santa Tradition Alive

Lose the made up fantasy pipe mate .. what was not honest .. my answer was direct and specific .. without deflection

What part of "Not all speech" .. did you not understand . followed by example of speech not included .. and reference to other standard "Not free speech" things

but then you liked everything else - which means clearly you did not understand the first answer

Your question is addressed in the part you didn't understand. - and in the reference to essential liberty .. which tells me that you also do not understand what Essential liberty is.

Liberty -- is NOT - Essential Liberty .. when you understand the difference .. your question is answered .. that difference is given in my quote from Founding Father Thomas - explaining to you in very few words - the difference between LIberty - and Essential Liberty.and explaining that one the Gov't has Legitimate Authority over .. the other it does not.

"Legitimacy of Authority" -- is what the DOI explaines .. but also what is not Legit authority. If Gov't has no legit Authority to make law .. "It has no legit authority to make law" So if Gov't is violating this to significant degree .. is the reason for the second ammendment.

What was also explained --- "Direct Harm" -- rape - murder - theft = Legit authority .. this is what we Gave Gov't authority to do .. "Protection from Harm" Direct Harm .. not "Utilitarian" woke Joke Harm .. law on the basis of someone's feelings hurt .. because they don't like something personally .. "Porn" "Alcohol" crying out for "Harm Reduction"

What you do to yourself is not "HARM" in relation to Essential Liberty.. it is one person on another .. Direct Harm .. This is what the Gov't is to protect is against.

Someone yelling fire in a crowded theatre has a significant chance of causing direct physical harm .. but further .. it meets the bar of legitimacy .. which is agreement by "Overwhelming Majority" = 67% or more .. that we should make a change to the social contract for such behavior .. and that is your bar .. for what is legitimate Gov't authority .. and what is not. If you can get 67% to agree with you.

So 1) if the speech does not affect essential liberty -- break leg or pick pocket -- Gov't has no legit authority to make law against it.
2) If Gov't wants to make law in such cases ... it has no legit authority .. of its own volition .. and therefore must be given that authority .. how this is done also detailed in the Declaration .. must appeal to "We the People" for a Change to the Social Contract .. the bar for such change is NOT 50+1 .. nor Simple majority mandate (because some moron gets elected gives her a mandate) 67% is the bar)- SMM

Why Daniel San .. "Why is this the Bar" ?? Why is 50+1 SMM -- not legitimate justification for Law. and now do you notice how far down the slippery slope we have fallen .. why every member of SCOTUS should be dismissed for dereliction of Duty..

and the floor over to you

 

True to some degree .. but, less so than all the others. and as the poster indicated .. more Truth coming out of Tucker than the others.

Quite lost on this topic -- no idea what essential liberty is .. don't understand the first ammendment .. "Free Speech - Press - Information" and parsisan blindness in relation to what is happening around you.

 

and sadly

some people believe this

 

Spare me the crap. In a thread about Carlson and Fox and the lies they told I asked you a specific question and you came back with fairy tales, Santa Claus and fire in a theater.

 

Ya, if you think individual freedom is more dangerous than a corrupt, all powerful state, sure.

 

I answered your question specifically

1) Yes - except in circumstances which were outlined in detail.
2) Why- because I support free speech
3) what purpose - without free speech there is no such thing as a functional democratic process.

All was answered previously - Don't blame me if you don't understand English and/or have no ability to comprehend what you are reading.

What part of "YES" was difficult for you to understand ?