There definitely were implications of free speech infringement on the part of Twitter past as evidenced by the Twitter Files that proved government officials worked with Twitter to get people like Tucker Carlson, Robert Malone, Peter McCullough and countless others banned.
It's a well know, though little acknowledged fact that the FBI controls the narrative at New York Times, and CIA at Washington Port.
When you bring pressure on media organizations to report lies, and hoaxes, and punish anyone that wants to tell a different side of the narrative, that is free speech infringement.
The DOJ was conspiring with media during Russia collusion hoax. They would pump a story to media, media would report on it, and the DOJ would use that media report to justify an investigation.
Your blink if you can't see the link between nefarious Government agencies and the media.
What do you think Operation Mockingbird was all about.
Implications and direct interference are different things.
It’s one thing to say “this may have been happening” and it’s another thing to say that it is a direct infringement.
Fact is, Tucker has information he wants to share, MSM outlets wouldn’t show it, so he found a new outlet that would. That’s the literally definition of freedom of speech, being able to find a platform that can broadcast his channel without being persecuted for his words
You nit picking. I get the point you trying to make, but remember we don't live in a time where someone goes to a physical town square, stands on a podium, grabs a paper megaphone, and freely shouts out his message to the ears of all within hearing distance. The media is not the town square.
Which is a free speech infringement 1) Restricting a person from speaking? 2) restricting a person from being heard? I say both. Allow a person a stage from which to speak, while cutting of their microphone is still infringement on speech.
we don't live in a time where someone goes to a physical town square, stands on a podium, grabs a paper megaphone, and freely shouts out his message to the ears of all within hearing distance.
But we live in a time where you can and you won't be persecuted for doing so. That's what free speech means.
Which is a free speech infringement 1) Restricting a person from speaking? 2) restricting a person from being heard? I say both.
Both, yes, but by the government.
What we know is that MSM outlets don't want to air this Tucker Carlson interview. What we do not know if it is because of pressures by the government, or it was a decision made by the executives at these networks to protect their own bottom line. We can't be certain if it is the government that is forcing these networks to not air the interview.
You can be suspicious of it, and it may be possible, but it isn't certain
So the way I see, there’s no real free speech infringement at play here
There definitely were implications of free speech infringement on the part of Twitter past as evidenced by the Twitter Files that proved government officials worked with Twitter to get people like Tucker Carlson, Robert Malone, Peter McCullough and countless others banned.
It's a well know, though little acknowledged fact that the FBI controls the narrative at New York Times, and CIA at Washington Port.
When you bring pressure on media organizations to report lies, and hoaxes, and punish anyone that wants to tell a different side of the narrative, that is free speech infringement.
The DOJ was conspiring with media during Russia collusion hoax. They would pump a story to media, media would report on it, and the DOJ would use that media report to justify an investigation.
Your blink if you can't see the link between nefarious Government agencies and the media.
What do you think Operation Mockingbird was all about.
Implications and direct interference are different things.
It’s one thing to say “this may have been happening” and it’s another thing to say that it is a direct infringement.
Fact is, Tucker has information he wants to share, MSM outlets wouldn’t show it, so he found a new outlet that would. That’s the literally definition of freedom of speech, being able to find a platform that can broadcast his channel without being persecuted for his words
You nit picking. I get the point you trying to make, but remember we don't live in a time where someone goes to a physical town square, stands on a podium, grabs a paper megaphone, and freely shouts out his message to the ears of all within hearing distance. The media is not the town square.
Which is a free speech infringement 1) Restricting a person from speaking? 2) restricting a person from being heard? I say both. Allow a person a stage from which to speak, while cutting of their microphone is still infringement on speech.
But we live in a time where you can and you won't be persecuted for doing so. That's what free speech means.
Both, yes, but by the government.
What we know is that MSM outlets don't want to air this Tucker Carlson interview. What we do not know if it is because of pressures by the government, or it was a decision made by the executives at these networks to protect their own bottom line. We can't be certain if it is the government that is forcing these networks to not air the interview.
You can be suspicious of it, and it may be possible, but it isn't certain