Tucker Carlson out at Fox News

What would you do with an employee you could not control. One that does what they want regardless of what they are told.

 

It says specifically that Congress cannot prohibit free speech. However, Supreme Court has ruled on whether commercial speech, a much broader speech, can be prohibited than free speech. Commercial speech can include what speech is used on the company's property and use, hence why the such speech has more limitations if you are using company property and so forth. It is why social media companies operate in this manner. It is not your "property" that you are posting. You are posting on property owned by someone else and you voluntarily agree to adhere to those rules when using that property.

The government does not tell what private businesses do. The government can limit what businesses can and cannot do through regulations and laws that were passed as long as it is within the confines of the US constitutional standards we have set forth. Yet conservatives are doing that more and more recently when business and business associations are beginning to question that conservative "culture war" that has been raging on the airwaves since the 1990s.

This pretty much answers your question, that free speech is not being degraded. What you have is a group of crybabies who have issues with authority, any authority, unfortunately. this is not a free for all. If it were, you and I would be on the battlefield right now and god will not be on your side. But we don't live in that type of world, do we? No we don't.

Censorship is government telling the populace on what they can and cannot say with political and legal consequences, much like the laws being proposed and passed in the GOP state legislature in Flordia among other places. It does not include private businesses. That has been going on since before you were born, and even before this country was even founded. So, please, get off your high horse and learn something for once yonker.

 

You repeated "congress can not prohibit free speech" which we agree on .. then say Gov't does not tell business what to do ..as if your previous error was somehow corrected

"The first ammendment does not say private enterprizes can prohibit free speech.. What on earth are you talking about. The first ammendment says NO Such Thing.. in any way shape or form. As stated previously my friend .. your claim is a falsehood .. not true".

Censorship - by definition degrades free speech. -- I am sorry .. you simply are at way too low a level for me to attempt to try to bring up to speed .. that and lack of ability to learn ..and penchance to disengage from reality.

What part of 1A - does not say what you claim it said .. in any way shape or form .. do you not understand ? You have it backwards .. and refuse to put things right side up .. so I must go .. as my brain can only handle so much nonsense ... either intentional or otherwise.

 

You need to read what the Supreme Court says of what is and what is not free speech, who can prohibit free speech, and so froth. It was in one of the links I posted, the one link about the limits of what corporations can do with free speech. A lot of that is based on Supreme Court Rulings, and that means Articles 6 and 3 are in play as well.

It is not as simple as you are trying to make this.

 

This has nothing to do with controling an employee in any field but Media - and only in situation where the media is controlled by large Oligopoies.

and you would do as the Gov't -- in a situation over which you had no control ?

 

That will not change the fact that 1A does not state what you claimed .. nor that you have no idea what free speech is ... nor censorship nor why there is no such thing as functional democratic process without fair and free media.

 

You are clearly stuck in the echo chamber, of your own mind. How does your theory explain the timing of his ouster? The fact is, that FOX didn't give a , what kind of garbage came out of Tucker's mouth, until it started costing them money. You say in your prior post:

When, pray tell, do you think, he'd stopped following the "establishment script?" Last week? Last month? Does that argument really make any sense? He's gone, only because FOX began seeing Tucker as more of a financial liability, than he is worth to their bottom line (which is really saying something, about what a liability he had become).

 

I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

 

You’re one to talk…..

 

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1651679200376418339

 

I see what you are saying........... but what about standards, ethics and credibility???........ How and what we communicate should have credibility...... and what has happened to Fox.........not just TC..........is that they have lost credibility....... they sold their media "soul" for MONEY.......

 

So you have nothing but blind devotion to a scumbag. How predictable.

 

Typically, in a purely private arena, you do a cost benefit analysis. In such an environment, you tell the employee not to bring a gun to work, you aren't violating their Constitutional rights. Same with telling someone what they can say on Fox. (It is another thing if we find out the FBI instructed Fox to cancel him). Tucker leaving cost some $800 million in value of their stock. It may get worse. What is Fox getting in exchange? Understanding why they did this matters to those who would get their news from Fox.
My POV? Fox wants, like Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell, to be controlled opposition. And Tucker was challenging, not advancing, their agenda.
To those who want to hear about vaccine hesitation, election skepticism, anti-war sentiment, counter woke considerations which we just aren't hearing in any other mainstream forum, we will have to go for our news elsewhere.

 

Of course he was. He had a slot on Fox at prime time to give a piece of his mind. Or at least, he pretended to give a piece of his mind, but spread lies.

And even though there is a whole team... BEHIND the spear ... Nobody forced him to do be the tip.

 

How is stating the truth “blind devotion?” I told you exactly why Carlson was fired.

You’re the one who has nothing. Just insults. Nothing to support them either.

 

So you agree that he was fired because he could not be controlled?

 

So far, no one has put forth evidence to the contrary.

So, still believing that BIG LIE fits. Fox just admitted in their libel law suit to making false claims.
I suppose you don't believe them?

 

You need to read what the Amendment says, not what it wants you to say. No right within the US Constittuion is unlimited. There are limits. We have 12 exceptions, for instance, with the 4th amendment. We have exceptions that SCOTUS has ruled that is not considered free speech. We have limits on right to assemble or redress the government. And the list goes on and on. Again, this link says it all. It says, "The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech. It does not prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals or businesses. Facebook and other social media can regulate or restrict speech hosted on their platforms because they are private entities." It does not say everyone has a right to free speech. It specifically says that government generally cannot abridge free speech unless there is a clear and present danger doctrine involved where it can be limited. It is why websites such as this will delete or modify your posts if you violate the forum rules, which is well within their purview. But corporations do have a right to manage their own property and use of their property by other persons.

 

He was fired because it is a cost cutting move by Fox Management. They are already paying $787 million in one lawsuit, and will probably pay an equal amount, or similar amount with Semantec lawsuit. That is a lot of capital to pay even for Fox. And since Murdoch and upper management is not going to be cutting their own salary or benefits, guess who gets the brunt of it? Yep, people like Tucker Carlson.

 

Each company, person, sets their own standards and ethics. And that affects their credibility.

Fox has been known to lie for a long time to many. But to loyals, it was all truth. So those standards and ethics are subjective. Which is fine. We are not robots and all have different standards.

Yes, those do affect credibility. IMO, 24/7 reality tv claiming to be new sources are not very credible. At least in terms of trying to be objective in reporting.
They are all catering to a target audience. And the goal is to sell as much ads as possible to generate a profit.

Fox just crossed a line when they promoted lies knowingly about Dominion and soon Smartmatic.

 

So then you agree with me when I said he was fired because he could not be controlled?

 

Fox has not “been known to lie:”. Every once in a while every news agency gets something wrong. CNN and MSNBC have been caught fabricating stories. That goes beyond just getting it wrong.

 

Yea and that is a load of bullshit, just like carlson was spreading. Nothing can be further from the truth.

 

See what's great about this, you and I can disagree.
Fox has become the station to promote conspiracy theories. Largely lies.
They just settled a law suit and admitted to making false claims. IE Lying.
And they still have another 1 to go.

 

I believe FOX is just as happy to lie to us as MSNBC or CNN or etc. I don't consider anything any of them say to be reliable.
I also believe election fraud occurred, as it does in every election.
I also believe if there was enough election fraud to sway the victory from Trump to Biden, the corrupt and clearly anti-Trump political establishment would go to great lengths to sweep any evidence it could under the rug and convince/coerce the courts into dismissing as much of it as possible.
I also believe even if the corrupt establishment wasn't anti-Trump, it would cover up election fraud anyway because admitting an election could be stolen would undermine the very concept of authoritative democratic govt itself, and they can't have that.
I also believe that no matter how much election fraud there is, offensive violence is always wrong. Anyone who engaged in offensive violence at the capital on Jan 6 to try to stop a fraudulent election doomed themselves -and their movement- by doing so.