Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 601

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Bronze
    Reputation
    63
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    226
    Load Metric
    65707781

    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?

     
    Comments
      
      dwai: fascist faggot
      
      JimmyG_415: DWAI you hate ANTIFA, that makes you the fascist. 100% w/the OP, I don't see why they can't make a rule if you have news in your name, you can't just lie.
      
      splitthis: Commie pig
      
      MumblesBadly: Counter the moronic red reppers.
      
      Serial Fail: He literally lies

  2. #2
    Diamond dwai's Avatar
    Reputation
    1653
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    7,855
    Load Metric
    65707781
    ROFL

     
    Comments
      
      BartHanson: Why don't u answer the question, asspacker
      
      splitthis:
      
      snowtracks:

  3. #3
    Canadrunk limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1650
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In Todd's head
    Posts
    17,648
    Blog Entries
    1
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by BartHanson View Post
    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

  4. #4
    Platinum mickeycrimm's Avatar
    Reputation
    281
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,795
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by limitles View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BartHanson View Post
    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
    America does not have unbridled capitalism. And screw Canada's Unfreedom of Expression laws. Any fool knows that the truth can be construed as defamation by any leftard idiot.

    PS: Libtards like Sloppy Hoe and wittle waltie are getting their asses handed to them in this thread to.
    Last edited by mickeycrimm; 05-11-2021 at 05:34 AM.
    POKER FAG ALERT! POKER FAG ALERT! FOR GAY SEX CONTACT SLOPPY JOE.

  5. #5
    Canadrunk limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1650
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In Todd's head
    Posts
    17,648
    Blog Entries
    1
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by limitles View Post

    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
    America does not have unbridled capitalism. And screw Canada's Unfreedom of Expression laws. Any fool knows that the truth can be construed as defamation by any leftard idiot.

    PS: Libtards like Sloppy Hoe and wittle waltie are getting their asses handed to them in this thread to.
    America’s form of Capitalism is the most unbridled(deregulated) that I know of or that matters.

    ”Truth can be construed as defamation” I don’t know what you mean by that but I’d say that’s exactly the problem. Multimedia organizations like Fox portray themselves as a news outlet when it’s basically an arm of the right wing agenda.

    It looks like a news outlet, they certainly sprinkle in items that are non political but Tucker and most of their attention getters are op ed writers who are there to put a right leaning bent to everything he says. It's a show. It’s Gerry Springer and you guys can’t get enough. Twitter ain’t news and Fox by name only.

  6. #6
    Platinum mickeycrimm's Avatar
    Reputation
    281
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,795
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by limitles View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

    America does not have unbridled capitalism. And screw Canada's Unfreedom of Expression laws. Any fool knows that the truth can be construed as defamation by any leftard idiot.

    PS: Libtards like Sloppy Hoe and wittle waltie are getting their asses handed to them in this thread to.
    America’s form of Capitalism is the most unbridled(deregulated) that I know of or that matters.

    ”Truth can be construed as defamation” I don’t know what you mean by that but I’d say that’s exactly the problem. Multimedia organizations like Fox portray themselves as a news outlet when it’s basically an arm of the right wing agenda.

    It looks like a news outlet, they certainly sprinkle in items that are non political but Tucker and most of their attention getters are op ed writers who are there to put a right leaning bent to everything he says. It's a show. It’s Gerry Springer and you guys can’t get enough. Twitter ain’t news and Fox by name only.
    Yes, the news is much more balanced on the Clinton News Network, known as CNN....and also over at Micro Soft Democratic National Committee, known as MSDNC. You libs, lol. You're funny people. You don't see your own shortcomings.

    Your comment that "everything on Fox News has a right leaning bent" is not true. FNC has a large contingent of liberal commentators and debaters on staff. To name a few, I have to listen to Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Tamara Holder, Donna Brazille, Dennis Kucenich, even James Carville has been on staff. The list goes on.

    These libs are not on FNC to spout conservative values. On Fox News you get healthy and lively debates between conservatives and liberals. You don't get that on CNN and MSDNC. All you get is liberals talking to each other.

    Juan Williams used to be a substitute host on The O'Reilly Factor. A damn liberal. Have you ever seen a conservative substitute host for Rachel Maddow? Hell no. And you won't either.

     
    Comments
      
      Sloppy Joe: Green for the cripples
    POKER FAG ALERT! POKER FAG ALERT! FOR GAY SEX CONTACT SLOPPY JOE.

  7. #7
    Diamond Sloppy Joe's Avatar
    Reputation
    1111
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,484
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by limitles View Post

    America’s form of Capitalism is the most unbridled(deregulated) that I know of or that matters.

    ”Truth can be construed as defamation” I don’t know what you mean by that but I’d say that’s exactly the problem. Multimedia organizations like Fox portray themselves as a news outlet when it’s basically an arm of the right wing agenda.

    It looks like a news outlet, they certainly sprinkle in items that are non political but Tucker and most of their attention getters are op ed writers who are there to put a right leaning bent to everything he says. It's a show. It’s Gerry Springer and you guys can’t get enough. Twitter ain’t news and Fox by name only.
    Yes, the news is much more balanced on the Clinton News Network, known as CNN....and also over at Micro Soft Democratic National Committee, known as MSDNC. You libs, lol. You're funny people. You don't see your own shortcomings.

    Your comment that "everything on Fox News has a right leaning bent" is not true. FNC has a large contingent of liberal commentators and debaters on staff. To name a few, I have to listen to Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Tamara Holder, Donna Brazille, Dennis Kucenich, even James Carville has been on staff. The list goes on.

    These libs are not on FNC to spout conservative values. On Fox News you get healthy and lively debates between conservatives and liberals. You don't get that on CNN and MSDNC. All you get is liberals talking to each other.

    Juan Williams used to be a substitute host on The O'Reilly Factor. A damn liberal. Have you ever seen a conservative substitute host for Rachel Maddow? Hell no. And you won't either.
    Nobody in America thinks this, including Fox News. Literally everyone here knows that the various media outlets are biased.

    I know being a shill cuck is your brand but god damn, just because you can't walk anymore doesn't mean you should have NO self-respect whatsoever.

     
    Comments
      
      mickeycrimm: The mental midget showing his mental midgetry
    PokerFraudAlert...will never censor your claims, even if they're against one of our sponsors. In addition to providing you an open forum report fraud within the poker community, we will also analyze your claims with a clear head an unbiased point of view. And, of course, the accused will always have the floor to defend themselves.-Dan Druff

  8. #8
    Platinum mickeycrimm's Avatar
    Reputation
    281
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,795
    Load Metric
    65707781
    FartHanson got the idea for this thread from watching CNN. Their ratings have dropped by two-thirds since Trump left office. Where they used to average almost 3 million viewers they are now less than 1 million. They no longer have Trump as a foil to keep people glued to their network.

    For lack of a better boogie man they've targeted Fox News to try to pump up ratings. They are now doing continual attacks on FNC. And Tucker Carlson, with the highest ratings, is the main target. They jump on anything they can to denigrate him. They were the ones that jumped on Tucker's stats for those who got covid after getting the vaccine. FartHanson is just parroting them.

    Here's what I don't get about some being alarmed at people getting covid after being vaccinated. Do you remember the vaccine advertised as 95% effective. That doesn't mean 100% effective. You still have a 5% chance of being infected if you come into contact with the virus. So shut the fuck up about "OMG!!! She took the vaccine and got infected anyway!!!!!" Stifle yourself, Edith.
    Last edited by mickeycrimm; 05-11-2021 at 03:22 PM.
    POKER FAG ALERT! POKER FAG ALERT! FOR GAY SEX CONTACT SLOPPY JOE.

  9. #9
    Diamond Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Reputation
    1243
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Bowling Alley
    Posts
    8,875
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by limitles View Post

    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
    America does not have unbridled capitalism. And screw Canada's Unfreedom of Expression laws. Any fool knows that the truth can be construed as defamation by any leftard idiot.

    PS: Libtards like Sloppy Hoe and wittle waltie are getting their asses handed to them in this thread to.
    Apparently you haven't bothered to read my posts because I am saying Tucker should not be kept off the air.

    SOBCHAK SECURITY 213-799-7798

    PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., THE GREAT AND POWERFUL

  10. #10
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by BartHanson View Post
    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?

     
    Comments
      
      splitthis:
      
      MumblesBadly: Chris Cuomo did no such thing! Seriously, get some professional help, man!
      
      Reno: offset the smooth brain
      
      IamGreek: So much this
      
      snowtracks:

  11. #11
    Plutonium Sanlmar's Avatar
    Reputation
    4291
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    21,090
    Load Metric
    65707781
    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.

  12. #12
    Canadrunk limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1650
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In Todd's head
    Posts
    17,648
    Blog Entries
    1
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BartHanson View Post
    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
    Last edited by limitles; 05-09-2021 at 08:10 PM.

  13. #13
    Diamond Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Reputation
    1243
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Bowling Alley
    Posts
    8,875
    Load Metric
    65707781
    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.

    SOBCHAK SECURITY 213-799-7798

    PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., THE GREAT AND POWERFUL

  14. #14
    Bronze
    Reputation
    63
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    226
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    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.

     
    Comments
      
      splitthis: Stupid liberal
      
      snowtracks: double Stupid Liberal
    Last edited by BartHanson; 05-09-2021 at 09:12 PM.

  15. #15
    Canadrunk limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1650
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In Todd's head
    Posts
    17,648
    Blog Entries
    1
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by BartHanson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    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

  16. #16
    Diamond Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Reputation
    1243
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Bowling Alley
    Posts
    8,875
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by BartHanson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    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.

    SOBCHAK SECURITY 213-799-7798

    PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., THE GREAT AND POWERFUL

  17. #17
    Platinum ftpjesus's Avatar
    Reputation
    588
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    4,080
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by BartHanson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    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...

  18. #18
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by BartHanson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    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.

     
    Comments
      
      splitthis: He is a retard

  19. #19
    Canadrunk limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1650
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In Todd's head
    Posts
    17,648
    Blog Entries
    1
    Load Metric
    65707781
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BartHanson View Post

    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.
    Patently false. See how this works? People spread misinformation, knowingly or not.

  20. #20
    Gold
    Reputation
    362
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    2,336
    Load Metric
    65707781
    What other thoughts should be banned, Bitch Tits Bart?

    Why can’t people express anti-vax view points?

    Should they be allowed to express anti-vax view points if they or a loved one experienced negative experiences with vaccines?

    I’ve noticed many people posting about banning “disinformation”, they want to entrust the government to do this.

    Bart has floppy bitch tits. He failed as a low stakes poker grinder so he runs a scam training site. Very sad to witness

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-12-2021, 01:05 PM
  2. Tucker Carlson on Fox
    By desertrunner in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-24-2021, 12:11 AM
  3. Graphic video released of Tucker Carlson being sodomised (NSFW)
    By Lord of the Fraud in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 02-22-2021, 07:21 AM
  4. Three players allege Issac Tucker scammed them
    By Dan Druff in forum Scams, Scandals, and Shadiness
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-17-2018, 03:09 PM
  5. Tucker Carlson brutal takedown of hoaxster
    By PLOL in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-18-2017, 04:09 PM

Tags for this Thread