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
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
Right, new outlets don't want to air the biggest interview of the year because they believe having lots of viewers is a bad idea. Get real man!
Aren't you aware of how the intel agencies run MSM? Have you even heard of Operation Mockingbird?
Now you just being silly, purposely being ignorant.
Well you can insult me or you can actually have a real response.
Where am I wrong here?