At What Point Should Tucker Carlson be “Taken” off the Air?

We all know that free speech has limits like yelling crowded in a crowded theater, making threats of bodily harm, extortion, defamation etc. Tucker Carlson said last Wednesday night -- “Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States … The actual number is almost certainly higher.”

Carlson is jumping to absurd conclusions with data taken from VAERS where anyone can self report anything to the CDC with no adjustment for reasonable cause and correlation. It’s akin to saying that 3362 people died last year within 48 hours of taking a shower. The problem with discussing his misinformation as it applies specifically to COVID is that we all know that the death rate from COVID is extremely low and is far more likely to have serious effects on a small subset of the general population (the elderly, overweight etc). But what if we were in a more serious pandemic or public health crisis that had much higher fatality rates... Should he be allowed to utter disinformation about safe vaccines especially if they were the path to herd immunity and overall general well being for the country?

I fully acknowledge that historically governments that overreach and restrict speech usually end up as authoritarian, marxist type states. But where do we draw the line? Our society has advanced technologically to a point where a single person or group can have mass swaths of influence over others because of the way information is delivered. And you can extrapolate outward from there if all disinformation is allowed to run unchecked because of "freedom of speech". A "news outlet" knowingly lies about an assassination causing a violent uprising. Or the use of deep fake videos to manipulate the words of a high ranking government official.

If Tucker Carlson was shilling some herbal “health” pill that ended up killing people his speech would not be protected if he knowingly continue to promote that pill. So what are the boundaries?

ROFL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BartHanson

We all know that free speech has limits like yelling crowded in a crowded theater, making threats of bodily harm, extortion, defamation etc. Tucker Carlson said last Wednesday night -- “Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States … The actual number is almost certainly higher.”

Carlson is jumping to absurd conclusions with data taken from VAERS where anyone can self report anything to the CDC with no adjustment for reasonable cause and correlation. It’s akin to saying that 3362 people died last year within 48 hours of taking a shower. The problem with discussing his misinformation as it applies specifically to COVID is that we all know that the death rate from COVID is extremely low and is far more likely to have serious effects on a small subset of the general population (the elderly, overweight etc). But what if we were in a more serious pandemic or public health crisis that had much higher fatality rates... Should he be allowed to utter disinformation about safe vaccines especially if they were the path to herd immunity and overall general well being for the country?

I fully acknowledge that historically governments that overreach and restrict speech usually end up as authoritarian, marxist type states. But where do we draw the line? Our society has advanced technologically to a point where a single person or group can have mass swaths of influence over others because of the way information is delivered. And you can extrapolate outward from there if all disinformation is allowed to run unchecked because of "freedom of speech". A "news outlet" knowingly lies about an assassination causing a violent uprising. Or the use of deep fake videos to manipulate the words of a high ranking government official.

If Tucker Carlson was shilling some herbal “health” pill that ended up killing people his speech would not be protected if he knowingly continue to promote that pill. So what are the boundaries?

---

Trusting free enterprise/unbridled capitalism is putting all your eggs in one basket. There are enough creeps out there who will take full advantage of deregulation.

Troubles abound every where but I like Canada’s fundamental freedom, Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter also permits the government to enforce "reasonable" limits. Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada. During the 1970 October Crisis, the War Measures Act was used to limit speech from the militant political opposition.

A lot more to it in the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...sion_in_Canada

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BartHanson

We all know that free speech has limits like yelling crowded in a crowded theater, making threats of bodily harm, extortion, defamation etc. Tucker Carlson said last Wednesday night -- “Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States … The actual number is almost certainly higher.”

Carlson is jumping to absurd conclusions with data taken from VAERS where anyone can self report anything to the CDC with no adjustment for reasonable cause and correlation. It’s akin to saying that 3362 people died last year within 48 hours of taking a shower. The problem with discussing his misinformation as it applies specifically to COVID is that we all know that the death rate from COVID is extremely low and is far more likely to have serious effects on a small subset of the general population (the elderly, overweight etc). But what if we were in a more serious pandemic or public health crisis that had much higher fatality rates... Should he be allowed to utter disinformation about safe vaccines especially if they were the path to herd immunity and overall general well being for the country?

I fully acknowledge that historically governments that overreach and restrict speech usually end up as authoritarian, marxist type states. But where do we draw the line? Our society has advanced technologically to a point where a single person or group can have mass swaths of influence over others because of the way information is delivered. And you can extrapolate outward from there if all disinformation is allowed to run unchecked because of "freedom of speech". A "news outlet" knowingly lies about an assassination causing a violent uprising. Or the use of deep fake videos to manipulate the words of a high ranking government official.

If Tucker Carlson was shilling some herbal “health” pill that ended up killing people his speech would not be protected if he knowingly continue to promote that pill. So what are the boundaries?

---

The free market should dictate whether someone stays on the air. If people want to watch Tucker, and a broadcast platform wants to carry him, then he should be able to be heard.

If he spreads misinformation, that same free speech and accessibility to the masses can be used to call him out.

Misinformation is always a side effect of free speech. There is no such thing as a perfect world where you have free speech only for those telling the truth, and suppression of untruths. Free speech doesn't work that way, especially since the concepts of "truth" and "misinformation" are often manipulated for poltiical reasons. A good example was the suppressed Hunter Biden story, which at this point looks like it was mostly true, yet big social media (and the mainstream media) conspired to suppress the story.

Anything gained by suppressing misinformation is unfortunately countered by a much greater loss of freedom, due to other censorship made under false pretenses. Therefore, it was discovered long before we were born that free speech can only truly exist if everyone is allowed a platform, even if some of that speech ends up being untrue or causing problems.

The "fire in a crowded theater" example doesn't apply here, because that doesn't apply to ideology. There is no ideology there -- only a desire to cause harm based upon intentionally false information. Here you're asking for a political analyst to be censored because he makes untrue statements.

Question for you, Bart: Chris Cuomo and others encouraged the summer rioting, which caused mass destruction and killed people. Should they be taken off the air?

There is a firehose of misinformation today.

Isn’t this like your typical day on Facebook?

There’s nothing you can do and I agree it’s not good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BartHanson

We all know that free speech has limits like yelling crowded in a crowded theater, making threats of bodily harm, extortion, defamation etc. Tucker Carlson said last Wednesday night -- “Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States … The actual number is almost certainly higher.”

Carlson is jumping to absurd conclusions with data taken from VAERS where anyone can self report anything to the CDC with no adjustment for reasonable cause and correlation. It’s akin to saying that 3362 people died last year within 48 hours of taking a shower. The problem with discussing his misinformation as it applies specifically to COVID is that we all know that the death rate from COVID is extremely low and is far more likely to have serious effects on a small subset of the general population (the elderly, overweight etc). But what if we were in a more serious pandemic or public health crisis that had much higher fatality rates... Should he be allowed to utter disinformation about safe vaccines especially if they were the path to herd immunity and overall general well being for the country?

I fully acknowledge that historically governments that overreach and restrict speech usually end up as authoritarian, marxist type states. But where do we draw the line? Our society has advanced technologically to a point where a single person or group can have mass swaths of influence over others because of the way information is delivered. And you can extrapolate outward from there if all disinformation is allowed to run unchecked because of "freedom of speech". A "news outlet" knowingly lies about an assassination causing a violent uprising. Or the use of deep fake videos to manipulate the words of a high ranking government official.

If Tucker Carlson was shilling some herbal “health” pill that ended up killing people his speech would not be protected if he knowingly continue to promote that pill. So what are the boundaries?

---

The free market should dictate whether someone stays on the air. If people want to watch Tucker, and a broadcast platform wants to carry him, then he should be able to be heard.

If he spreads misinformation, that same free speech and accessibility to the masses can be used to call him out.

Misinformation is always a side effect of free speech. There is no such thing as a perfect world where you have free speech only for those telling the truth, and suppression of untruths. Free speech doesn't work that way, especially since the concepts of "truth" and "misinformation" are often manipulated for poltiical reasons. A good example was the suppressed Hunter Biden story, which at this point looks like it was mostly true, yet big social media (and the mainstream media) conspired to suppress the story.

Anything gained by suppressing misinformation is unfortunately countered by a much greater loss of freedom, due to other censorship made under false pretenses. Therefore, it was discovered long before we were born that free speech can only truly exist if everyone is allowed a platform, even if some of that speech ends up being untrue or causing problems.

The "fire in a crowded theater" example doesn't apply here, because that doesn't apply to ideology. There is no ideology there -- only a desire to cause harm based upon intentionally false information. Here you're asking for a political analyst to be censored because he makes untrue statements.

Question for you, Bart: Chris Cuomo and others encouraged the summer rioting, which caused mass destruction and killed people. Should they be taken off the air?

---

An analogy is the right to bear arms. Take that right to “occupying” a legislature with deadly weapons. That is a direct threat and not what your forefathers had in mind IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

The "fire in a crowded theater" example doesn't apply here, because that doesn't apply to ideology. There is no ideology there -- only a desire to cause harm based upon intentionally false information. Here you're asking for a political analyst to be censored because he makes untrue statements.

---

The false anti-vax message isn’t about ideology it’s a public health issue. Druff, I assume then in your free market approach you have an issue with the TV ban on cigarette ads that has been around for 50 years? A tobacco company should be able to say in a commercial that smoking isn’t harmful and it’s up to the market to decide whether or not the information is correct? Or a political commentator saying that a certain ethnic group should be “cleansed” from society causing his viewers to go out and murder people in that group?

And there is absolutely no difference between an advertisement and what Tucker does. One is to push sales for a product the other is to push viewers (ratings) that leads to more revenue for his TV show.

Tucker is using some of the classic techniques of asshole demagogues whose aim is to misinform and manipulate.

Make a statement that is factually true phrased in a way that makes causal implication that is not true. 100% of people died within a week of eating a meal. The meal didn't kill them.

Pose questions that are not meant to be answered but are meant to make a negative implication. When did you stop beating your wife?

John Oliver was spot on that Tucker is the mainstream voice of the white supremacist, who packages their hate and violence in a genteel manner that gives it a veneer of respectability.

He will be taken off the air when there's no longer a market for what he's peddling. In other words, when America becomes the country it pretends to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BartHanson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

The "fire in a crowded theater" example doesn't apply here, because that doesn't apply to ideology. There is no ideology there -- only a desire to cause harm based upon intentionally false information. Here you're asking for a political analyst to be censored because he makes untrue statements.

---

The false anti-vax message isn’t about ideology it’s a public health issue. Druff, I assume then in your free market approach you have an issue with the TV ban on cigarette ads that has been around for 50 years? A tobacco company should be able to say in a commercial that smoking isn’t harmful and it’s up to the market to decide whether or not the information is correct? Or a political commentator saying that a certain ethnic group should be “cleansed” from society causing his viewers to go out and murder people in that group?

---

bingo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BartHanson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

The "fire in a crowded theater" example doesn't apply here, because that doesn't apply to ideology. There is no ideology there -- only a desire to cause harm based upon intentionally false information. Here you're asking for a political analyst to be censored because he makes untrue statements.

---

The false anti-vax message isn’t about ideology it’s a public health issue. Druff, I assume then in your free market approach you have an issue with the TV ban on cigarette ads that has been around for 50 years? A tobacco company should be able to say in a commercial that smoking isn’t harmful and it’s up to the market to decide whether or not the information is correct? Or a political commentator saying that a certain ethnic group should be “cleansed” from society causing his viewers to go out and murder people in that group?

And there is absolutely no difference between an advertisement and what Tucker does. One is to push sales for a product the other is to push viewers (ratings) that leads to more revenue for his TV show.

---

I feel ya man and I hate that bowtie wearing faggot too but he should not be censored by the government. If Fox doesn't want to air him anymore that's their choice.

The cigarette ad example is commercial speech which doesn't have the same protections.

Tucker's show is political speech and is definitely protected from government censorship, even if the bullshit he's feeding people is bad for public health.

He doesn't have the right to a show on Fox or any other private platform though. If he loses advertisers or costs Fox money they will drop him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BartHanson

We all know that free speech has limits like yelling crowded in a crowded theater, making threats of bodily harm, extortion, defamation etc. Tucker Carlson said last Wednesday night -- “Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States … The actual number is almost certainly higher.”

Carlson is jumping to absurd conclusions with data taken from VAERS where anyone can self report anything to the CDC with no adjustment for reasonable cause and correlation. It’s akin to saying that 3362 people died last year within 48 hours of taking a shower. The problem with discussing his misinformation as it applies specifically to COVID is that we all know that the death rate from COVID is extremely low and is far more likely to have serious effects on a small subset of the general population (the elderly, overweight etc). But what if we were in a more serious pandemic or public health crisis that had much higher fatality rates... Should he be allowed to utter disinformation about safe vaccines especially if they were the path to herd immunity and overall general well being for the country?

I fully acknowledge that historically governments that overreach and restrict speech usually end up as authoritarian, marxist type states. But where do we draw the line? Our society has advanced technologically to a point where a single person or group can have mass swaths of influence over others because of the way information is delivered. And you can extrapolate outward from there if all disinformation is allowed to run unchecked because of "freedom of speech". A "news outlet" knowingly lies about an assassination causing a violent uprising. Or the use of deep fake videos to manipulate the words of a high ranking government official.

If Tucker Carlson was shilling some herbal “health” pill that ended up killing people his speech would not be protected if he knowingly continue to promote that pill. So what are the boundaries?

---

your argument would be more creditable to me if there were only a few news outlets...but i believe the news media is fragmented by so many means of delivery (cable, traditional broadcast tv, radio, print, internet) plus within those delivery means by so many competitors that a single voice is easily offset by other competing outlets/commentators. so imho its best to let a free market driven news media self censor out the bad voices.

Indeed, just watch any cable channel some night--they all have a segment where they run clips of rival networks where they discredit claims made by those rivals. That was never done when there were only 3 national tv network news shows back in the days of Cronkite, Huntly-Brinkley & Reynolds, each no more that an hour per day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BartHanson

We all know that free speech has limits like yelling crowded in a crowded theater, making threats of bodily harm, extortion, defamation etc. Tucker Carlson said last Wednesday night -- “Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States … The actual number is almost certainly higher.”

Carlson is jumping to absurd conclusions with data taken from VAERS where anyone can self report anything to the CDC with no adjustment for reasonable cause and correlation. It’s akin to saying that 3362 people died last year within 48 hours of taking a shower. The problem with discussing his misinformation as it applies specifically to COVID is that we all know that the death rate from COVID is extremely low and is far more likely to have serious effects on a small subset of the general population (the elderly, overweight etc). But what if we were in a more serious pandemic or public health crisis that had much higher fatality rates... Should he be allowed to utter disinformation about safe vaccines especially if they were the path to herd immunity and overall general well being for the country?

I fully acknowledge that historically governments that overreach and restrict speech usually end up as authoritarian, marxist type states. But where do we draw the line? Our society has advanced technologically to a point where a single person or group can have mass swaths of influence over others because of the way information is delivered. And you can extrapolate outward from there if all disinformation is allowed to run unchecked because of "freedom of speech". A "news outlet" knowingly lies about an assassination causing a violent uprising. Or the use of deep fake videos to manipulate the words of a high ranking government official.

If Tucker Carlson was shilling some herbal “health” pill that ended up killing people his speech would not be protected if he knowingly continue to promote that pill. So what are the boundaries?

---

The free market should dictate whether someone stays on the air. If people want to watch Tucker, and a broadcast platform wants to carry him, then he should be able to be heard.

If he spreads misinformation, that same free speech and accessibility to the masses can be used to call him out.

Misinformation is always a side effect of free speech. There is no such thing as a perfect world where you have free speech only for those telling the truth, and suppression of untruths. Free speech doesn't work that way, especially since the concepts of "truth" and "misinformation" are often manipulated for poltiical reasons. A good example was the suppressed Hunter Biden story, which at this point looks like it was mostly true, yet big social media (and the mainstream media) conspired to suppress the story.

Anything gained by suppressing misinformation is unfortunately countered by a much greater loss of freedom, due to other censorship made under false pretenses. Therefore, it was discovered long before we were born that free speech can only truly exist if everyone is allowed a platform, even if some of that speech ends up being untrue or causing problems.

The "fire in a crowded theater" example doesn't apply here, because that doesn't apply to ideology. There is no ideology there -- only a desire to cause harm based upon intentionally false information. Here you're asking for a political analyst to be censored because he makes untrue statements.

Question for you, Bart: Chris Cuomo and others encouraged the summer rioting, which caused mass destruction and killed people. Should they be taken off the air?

---

Agree.

As you've noted before, it's really unfortunate that most American media is heavily slanted and consuming unbiased news is next to impossible.

Most of the political shit here that we all waste time on (on both sides of the spectrum) is largely influenced by narratives put in place to serve agendas where truth is irrelevant to the powers that be.

Everyone wants their worldview reinforced, and the various networks curate stories accordingly.

Tucker misinforming on COVID issues is probably more acutely harmful but is just a symptom of a much larger problem of news masquerading as entertainment.

Both political parties are equally responsible for benefitting from this system and have zero motivation to address it. The country suffers as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BartHanson

We all know that free speech has limits like yelling crowded in a crowded theater, making threats of bodily harm, extortion, defamation etc. Tucker Carlson said last Wednesday night -- “Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States … The actual number is almost certainly higher.”

Carlson is jumping to absurd conclusions with data taken from VAERS where anyone can self report anything to the CDC with no adjustment for reasonable cause and correlation. It’s akin to saying that 3362 people died last year within 48 hours of taking a shower. The problem with discussing his misinformation as it applies specifically to COVID is that we all know that the death rate from COVID is extremely low and is far more likely to have serious effects on a small subset of the general population (the elderly, overweight etc). But what if we were in a more serious pandemic or public health crisis that had much higher fatality rates... Should he be allowed to utter disinformation about safe vaccines especially if they were the path to herd immunity and overall general well being for the country?

I fully acknowledge that historically governments that overreach and restrict speech usually end up as authoritarian, marxist type states. But where do we draw the line? Our society has advanced technologically to a point where a single person or group can have mass swaths of influence over others because of the way information is delivered. And you can extrapolate outward from there if all disinformation is allowed to run unchecked because of "freedom of speech". A "news outlet" knowingly lies about an assassination causing a violent uprising. Or the use of deep fake videos to manipulate the words of a high ranking government official.

If Tucker Carlson was shilling some herbal “health” pill that ended up killing people his speech would not be protected if he knowingly continue to promote that pill. So what are the boundaries?

---

your argument would be more creditable to me if there were only a few news outlets...but i believe the news media is fragmented by so many means of delivery (cable, traditional broadcast tv, radio, print, internet) plus within those delivery means by so many competitors that a single voice is easily offset by other competing outlets/commentators. so imho its best to let a free market driven news media self censor out the bad voices.

Indeed, just watch any cable channel some night--they all have a segment where they run clips of rival networks where they discredit claims made by those rivals. That was never done when there were only 3 national tv network news shows back in the days of Cronkite, Huntly-Brinkley & Reynolds, each no more that an hour per day.

---

Never-mind channels that argue a point via clips from other broadcasters. Pay attention to news outlets that provide interviews from spokes people on both sides of an issue. Anything other is not journalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BartHanson

We all know that free speech has limits like yelling crowded in a crowded theater, making threats of bodily harm, extortion, defamation etc. Tucker Carlson said last Wednesday night -- “Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States … The actual number is almost certainly higher.”

Carlson is jumping to absurd conclusions with data taken from VAERS where anyone can self report anything to the CDC with no adjustment for reasonable cause and correlation. It’s akin to saying that 3362 people died last year within 48 hours of taking a shower. The problem with discussing his misinformation as it applies specifically to COVID is that we all know that the death rate from COVID is extremely low and is far more likely to have serious effects on a small subset of the general population (the elderly, overweight etc). But what if we were in a more serious pandemic or public health crisis that had much higher fatality rates... Should he be allowed to utter disinformation about safe vaccines especially if they were the path to herd immunity and overall general well being for the country?

I fully acknowledge that historically governments that overreach and restrict speech usually end up as authoritarian, marxist type states. But where do we draw the line? Our society has advanced technologically to a point where a single person or group can have mass swaths of influence over others because of the way information is delivered. And you can extrapolate outward from there if all disinformation is allowed to run unchecked because of "freedom of speech". A "news outlet" knowingly lies about an assassination causing a violent uprising. Or the use of deep fake videos to manipulate the words of a high ranking government official.

If Tucker Carlson was shilling some herbal “health” pill that ended up killing people his speech would not be protected if he knowingly continue to promote that pill. So what are the boundaries?

---

coming from somebody who nearly died of Covid there are some legit deaths tied to some vaccines.. The number I dont believe Tucker is correct on his assumptions.. That being said the sister in law of a former co worker did indeed get both her shots and yet still got Covid-19 surpassing my illness and has been in the ICU for 15 days as of yesterday and odds are against her more then when I was sick.. (does happen with some vaccines and such that people dont develop immunity sadly.. My one cousin never became immune despite more then one round of Hep-B shots several years back).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BartHanson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

The "fire in a crowded theater" example doesn't apply here, because that doesn't apply to ideology. There is no ideology there -- only a desire to cause harm based upon intentionally false information. Here you're asking for a political analyst to be censored because he makes untrue statements.

---

The false anti-vax message isn’t about ideology it’s a public health issue. Druff, I assume then in your free market approach you have an issue with the TV ban on cigarette ads that has been around for 50 years? A tobacco company should be able to say in a commercial that smoking isn’t harmful and it’s up to the market to decide whether or not the information is correct? Or a political commentator saying that a certain ethnic group should be “cleansed” from society causing his viewers to go out and murder people in that group?

And there is absolutely no difference between an advertisement and what Tucker does. One is to push sales for a product the other is to push viewers (ratings) that leads to more revenue for his TV show.

---

But heres the irony Bart with regard to the advertising ban on cigarettes.. Its all about lobbyists money pouring into Congress truthfully.. One prime example was for years (going back to when we were kids) hard alcohol couldnt advertise on TV, Radio, Billboards etc.. That all changed less then 20 yrs ago and now when we used to only see ads for Budweiser and Gallo wine now its Capt Morgan etc as well..

Let me add one thing.. By Medical true definition neither the Pfizer nor Moderna shots are vaccines but in fact gene therapy as they directly modify genetic material within the person getting the shot.. The J&J shot is the one true vaccination currently available as it uses an actual modified virus (adenovirus I believe) to evoke an immune response and cause antibodies to be created.. The difference is significant in realty as we've never used such genetic therapy for a preventative measure up until this point its been strictly to battle cancers and potentially fatal genetic issues to try and save a patients life..

That being said the decision was made to rapid develop a way to try and evoke immunological response to protect people from getting as sick as I did or dying from Covid-19 (I will clarify neither my wife nor I had gotten the shot yet due to limited availability of the J&J shot and limitations on the demographics at the time here in AZ for it, we can both get it in June after 90 days has passed since we got sick otherwise we risk a major hyper reaction to any Covid Vaccine taken till then.. It does bother me many arent being told that and I do wonder how many of these severe reactions and/or deaths traced to vaccine administration are actually due to somebody having had Covid and didnt realize it or werent told to wait the proper time.. I suspect some of them are just that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BartHanson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

The "fire in a crowded theater" example doesn't apply here, because that doesn't apply to ideology. There is no ideology there -- only a desire to cause harm based upon intentionally false information. Here you're asking for a political analyst to be censored because he makes untrue statements.

---

The false anti-vax message isn’t about ideology it’s a public health issue. Druff, I assume then in your free market approach you have an issue with the TV ban on cigarette ads that has been around for 50 years? A tobacco company should be able to say in a commercial that smoking isn’t harmful and it’s up to the market to decide whether or not the information is correct? Or a political commentator saying that a certain ethnic group should be “cleansed” from society causing his viewers to go out and murder people in that group?

And there is absolutely no difference between an advertisement and what Tucker does. One is to push sales for a product the other is to push viewers (ratings) that leads to more revenue for his TV show.

---

The TV ban on cigarette advertisements was done for the sake of children. Advertisement is not commentary. It made sense to prevent the advertisement of a harmful, highly addictive product in a medium which children often watched. Similarly, it makes sense to disallow advertisements of pornography on television.

However, it would be a huge mistake to ban TV commentators who are pro-smoking, even if they're wrong. I would not want to see a ban on someone getting on TV saying that cigarrettes aren't harmful to your health, even though I disagree with the person.

See the difference?

You are stating that there is a "false anti-vax" message here. While I disagree with Carlson's conclusion about 3300 people dying from the vaccine, I want him to have the right to say it. Why? Because if 3300 really were dying from the vaccine, and it was being covered up by the government, I'd want to know! Therefore, banning "false" speech is very dangerous, because it means you're trusting biased third party gatekeepers to determine what is true and what is false! This means there will be ideologically driven information suppression. In some cases, they will be suppressing actual lies, which is fine. However, in other cases, the truth will be suppressed (Hunter Biden is a good example).

Suppressing the truth is far worse for society than failing to suppress lies. It is important that we allow people to speak freely, and then evaluate what they say from a logical perspective.

In this case, I don't agree with Carlson, and I agree with you that he's using a very flawed process to make his conclusions. However, perhaps the next time Carlson puts something out, it will be something the left is covering up, which is actually true. I don't want that suppressed, even if our gatekeepers on the left tell me that he spews nothing but lies. I need to decide for myself.

Simply put, not a single fascist society has ever risen to power in an environment with full free speech. Free speech is the enemy of fascism, and I will always support it, even with the sometimes unpleasant side effects it can bring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

The free market should dictate whether someone stays on the air. If people want to watch Tucker, and a broadcast platform wants to carry him, then he should be able to be heard.

If he spreads misinformation, that same free speech and accessibility to the masses can be used to call him out.

Misinformation is always a side effect of free speech. There is no such thing as a perfect world where you have free speech only for those telling the truth, and suppression of untruths. Free speech doesn't work that way, especially since the concepts of "truth" and "misinformation" are often manipulated for poltiical reasons. A good example was the suppressed Hunter Biden story, which at this point looks like it was mostly true, yet big social media (and the mainstream media) conspired to suppress the story.

Anything gained by suppressing misinformation is unfortunately countered by a much greater loss of freedom, due to other censorship made under false pretenses. Therefore, it was discovered long before we were born that free speech can only truly exist if everyone is allowed a platform, even if some of that speech ends up being untrue or causing problems.

The "fire in a crowded theater" example doesn't apply here, because that doesn't apply to ideology. There is no ideology there -- only a desire to cause harm based upon intentionally false information. Here you're asking for a political analyst to be censored because he makes untrue statements.

Question for you, Bart: Chris Cuomo and others encouraged the summer rioting, which caused mass destruction and killed people. Should they be taken off the air?

---

Agree.

As you've noted before, it's really unfortunate that most American media is heavily slanted and consuming unbiased news is next to impossible.

Most of the political shit here that we all waste time on (on both sides of the spectrum) is largely influenced by narratives put in place to serve agendas where truth is irrelevant to the powers that be.

Everyone wants their worldview reinforced, and the various networks curate stories accordingly.

Tucker misinforming on COVID issues is probably more acutely harmful but is just a symptom of a much larger problem of news masquerading as entertainment.

Both political parties are equally responsible for benefitting from this system and have zero motivation to address it. The country suffers as a result.

---

That is the crux of the problem. It’s sizzle vs.steak. Opinion “news” is not news but it’s out front and centre. People here admittedly consider twitter a news outlet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe

Tucker misinforming on COVID issues is probably more acutely harmful but is just a symptom of a much larger problem of news masquerading as entertainment.

---

And even worse, entertainment masquerading as news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Talking Heads

Space People read our mail.

The Space People think that TV news programs are comedies, and that soap operas are news.

The Space People will contact us when they can make money by doing so.

The Space People think factories are musical instruments. They sing along with them. Each song lasts from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. No music on weekends.

---

BartHanson is a faggot and the vaccine has killed 80 billion people so far, we're all dead

If you get most of your information from Tucker Carlson you have a lot of problems.


https://static.independent.co.uk/s3f...ebp&quality=75