We have been discussing how attacking free speech has become an article of faith for many on the left. That includes embracing corporate censorship and recently even good old-fashioned state censorship. It includes banning books and preventing opposing voices to be heard on campuses. Now, MSNBC national security analyst Frank Figliuzzi has called for Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Fox News host Tucker Carlson to face civil liability for their commentary on transgender policies or controversies after the recent tragic shooting in Colorado. It is part of a growing movement in the media in favor of imposing criminal or civil liability on opposing viewpoints — a call that is tantamount to sawing the very branch upon which journalists and analysts sit.
For the record, I am a legal analyst for Fox News.
I have spent my entire academic and professional career opposing criminal and civil efforts to punish or chill free speech. As free speech advocates, we cannot be drawn onto the slippery slope of only defending views with which we agree or treating some as beyond the protections of free speech principles because we find their views wrong or odious.
That is a test of principle that seems increasingly beyond not just many in politics but, surprisingly, in the media.
Boebert and Carlson are outspoken in their opposition to gender transitioning for children, transgender athletes competing in girl’s sporting event, and other current controversies. Defending their right to hold such positions is not an endorsement of those positions. I would take the same view if conservatives called for Figliuzzi to be criminally or civilly liable for criticizing evangelicals or Republicans before violent attacks.
On MSNBC, Figliuzzi declared:
“We said this over and over again. But strategically, what appears to be happening is they want to deny people the safe haven and safe harbor, whether we’re talking about kids in school feeling unsafe because of guns. Black churches feeling like they are going to get shot up, like at a Bible study that’s happened in South Carolina. Whether it’s synagogues, whether it’s the gay club on a weekend night, there seems to be a concerted effort to not only instill fear but deny the safe places.
…We need to see accountability and consequences… If he’s a consumer of the people we just rattled off, from Lauren Boebert to Tucker Carlson. Let’s get it out. Let’s get it out at trial. Let’s expose it for what it is, name it, and shame it. He. is a consumer of these people, and those people should face civil consequences from the victims.”
It is not clear what those “civil consequences” would be but it is obviously meant to punish those who are critical of transgender policies or positions. We have already seen cancel campaigns against figures like JK Rowling and others for such criticisms.
The civil liability could come in the form of agency actions by the FCC against Fox, but that would not include a member of Congress. It would also not pass constitutional muster, in my view.
The most obvious form of civil liability would be some type of tort action. However, group defamation is rarely a viable basis for a defamation claim. In the United States, it is extremely difficult to maintain a “group libel” case even when there is jurisdiction.
One of the leading cases occurred in 1952 in a New York lawsuit. In Neiman-Marcus v. Lait, 13 FRD 311 (SDNY 1952), employees of that high-end store sued the author of a book titled “U.S.A. Confidential.” The book claimed that some of the models at the store and all of the saleswomen in the Dallas store were “call girls.” It further stated that most of the salesmen in the men’s department were “faggots.” The issue came down to the size of the group. With 382 saleswomen and models, the court found that the group was too large. However, with the 25 salesmen, the court found that an action could be maintained.
Moreover, arguing that these speakers induced violence under another form of tort liability would be quickly rejected under the First Amendment. Previously, MSNBC legal analyst and Michigan Law Professor Barbara McQuade told MSNBC viewers that Trump could be charged with manslaughter for his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. This would fail for the same reason.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Indeed, even direct action causing emotional distress has been rejected on constitutional grounds.
One such case is Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011). I previously wrote that such lawsuits are a direct threat to free speech, though I had serious problems with the awarding of costs to the church in a prior column. I was, therefore, gladdened by the Supreme Court ruling 8-1 in favor of free speech in the case, even if it meant a victory for odious Westboro Church. Roberts held that the distasteful message cannot influence the analysis:
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”
Roberts further noted that “Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
The Court in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan have long limited tort law where it would undermine the First Amendment:” Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to ‘special protection’ under the First Amendment.”
MSNBC and Figliuzzi are perfectly within their rights to condemn Boebert, Carlson, or others for their viewpoints. That is the essence of free speech. They can respond to what they view as bad speech with better speech. However, the way to convince others that these views are wrong is not to seek the silencing of the speakers, but to present the reasons why those views should be rejected by others.
“ It is not clear what those “civil consequences” would be but it is obviously meant to punish those who are critical of transgender policies or positions.”
Turley sure loves to assume a lot of things based on what it’s not clear and run with a whole narrative which can be massively wrong.
Turley loves to defend freedom of speech and all its benefits. However he rarely talks about the consequences AND the responsibility that comes with it. Tucker Carlson Boebert love to spew anti-transgender rhetoric and imply false claims as fact and truth. That’s their right. However they are also subject consequences and reactions from exercising their right to speak their minds. MSNBC was making that point. It was not seeking civil court punishment, but Turley with little evidence or clarity went on to make a whole new narrative about punishing those two with civil liability claims.
Alex Jones learned the hard way that making stuff up and making false inflammatory claims constantly does have serious consequences and it’s costly. That is still true whether it’s Tucker Carlson or Boebert. Pointing out that there should or could still be consequences for their speech is not an attack on free speech. Turley only portrays it as an “ attack” because it involves pointing out there should be a consequence for such false claims. People like Tucker or Boebert think they can spew anything they like without regard for the consequences of what it may inflict on others. It’s easy to do when you don’t have to worry about the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech. They don’t want to to be responsible for it and they should face consequences such disregard. That was what the MSNBC analyst was implying.
Svelaz, Tucker is critical of guys swimming against women and guys dressed as ladies in thongs swishing in front of 5 year old kids, but your side calls every fascists and nazis and the cause of the end of America…but to you that is fine. What a joke.
Weak-minded contrarians will defend the most insane things in order to pretend that they are lawyers. Here’s a hint Svelaz, you are not a lawyer, you don’t have a legal mind, you have no critical thought process and you make a fool out of yourself about 100 times in reaction to every column.
Tucker is more than critical he also makes a lot of false claims and demagoguery about the LGBTQ community. Making extreme examples as the “norm” and inflaming gullibles like you are his priority.
I’ve never claimed to be a lawyer but I understand the legal reasoning or implied intent behind claims of “civil liability”. Stating that some should face legal liability for such rhetoric is not an “attack” on free speech. It’s no different than right-wing nutties here making claims that the left should be banished or be held accountable for who they are. Just saying it is still free speech. To act on it is another. That distinction is what requires critical thinking skills. Clearly you don’t have that.
“Tucker is more than critical he also makes a lot of false claims… about the LGBTQ community. “
What are the false claims?
When the MSNBC security analyst said, “Let’s get it out at trial” and “those people should face civil consequences”, it is quite clear he would have a way to inflict a penalty on any who would dare speak their minds in opposition to what a group thinks. You have stretched yourself far out of sorts to find disagreement with Turley on this one.
Turley stated it was not clear. Your characterization of what was said is out of context since you only apply key phrases and make a “clear inference” without including the entire statement in its proper context. Why else would Turley say it’s not clear?
When Turley said “it’s not clear”, his reference was to what exactly are the “civil consequences” that the MSNBC security analyst means for people to suffer. Whatever the consequences might be it is clear the analyst’s comment is meant to punish. Do not let your animus for the professor keep you from acknowledging plain reading of his text.
Do not miss the point that except for libeling or slandering another person no one should ever suffer consequences for their speech. Uninformed speech be it intentional or not is for individual listeners to decide, not state sponsored censors. If you are indeed on the side of free speech do not give anyone reason to doubt you.
Svelaz: If condemning gender transformation, e.g. double mastectomies, removal of sexual organs, is wrong or hurts your feelings, so be it. Carlson says those who perform these surgeries should be prosecuted. I agree. That is freedom of speech. Do you have a problem with that?
Randy,
Why would it be Carlson’s business what others choose to do?
What is HIS excuse?
He’s allowed to be as big a bigot as he wants to be. But his choice like anyone else’s has consequences. Tucker Carlson doesn’t want to accept the responsibility of his choice.
He can condemn as much as he wants. That doesn’t mean he should be immune from the criticism he deserves either.
Svelaz, Tucker Carlson is concerned with what other people do. He is concerned about young boys being castrated. He is concerned with surgery to remove a fifteen year old girls breast and alter her vagina. You are absolute in your belief that we should not be concerned with what other people do but in a civilized society we are concerned with what other people do. This is the reason that a criminal code exist in our nation. Your saying that we should not be concerned with what other people do is juvenile at best and malevolent at the worst. There are plenty of people in prison who ask why should they care what I do?
TiT, the problem with having those “concerns” is that they base them on wildly extreme and very rare examples and like you characterize them as the norm. Tucker is deliberately sowing fear and spreading false claims to get his ratings. He relies on gullible idiots like you to believe everything he says. He’s not concerned, he’s more interested in making you the prime reason why he gets his high ratings.
He’s demonizing a group of people because what?
Children aren’t being mutilated or abused. Those claims are being spread about by bigots who are doing it for the sake of being bigots and ur buying into it hook line and sinker.
“ Your saying that we should not be concerned with what other people do is juvenile at best and malevolent at the worst.”
No. I’m saying if you don’t like people getting into your business don’t be a hypocrite and get into theirs. Isn’t that the mantra of the right?
So Svelaz, as you see it the castration of underaged boys is not abuse. They can’t make a decision to buy a beer but in your book they can make a decision that will change them for the rest of their lives. I am trying to wrap my mind around your thinking that removing a boys testicles and penis is not abuse of a child. Are you so invested in your position that you are willing to condone these heinous acts to be performed on children? Your denial of what is happening says it all. What part of cutting off a boys balls do you not understand?
“ So Svelaz, as you see it the castration of underaged boys is not abuse.”
No. You have a bad habit of putting words in people’s mouths.
What you’re claiming and insinuating are extremely rare instances where it has been done and under strict policies and guidelines that are decided on by parents and their doctors. You’re judging a LOT of parents and transgendered folks based on these extremely rare instances. You’re alluding that this is happening all the time and it’s certainly not true.
“ I am trying to wrap my mind around your thinking that removing a boys testicles and penis is not abuse of a child.”
You’re trying to wrap your tiny mind around a concept that is so rare and under strict conditions and think it’s a normal procedure being done all the time. It’s not. But gullible idiots such as yourself keep convincing yourselves that there are children undergoing these procedures as if there are regular appendectomies.
What part of minding your own business and actually researching the issue don’t you get?
These children you claim are being “mutilated or castrated” are not making these decisions on a whim and neither are their parents or doctors. What you are clearly showing is an example of what massive ignorance looks like.
Svalaz, the regularity of the castrations of boys is not the question. The question is why should it happen even one time when there is no good reason to do it. If you have only done it once you are still a castrater of a child. Even if it’s just once there is still no justification for such a mutilation. Yesterday you said that the castration is never done but today you say that it is only done a little bit so it’s no big deal. The deeper you get the shallower you are.
You keep insinuating that this is done on a whim. It’s not.
“ The question is why should it happen even one time when there is no good reason to do it.”
What if there IS a reason to do it? What business is it of yours to judge? How does that affect you?
Svelaz, you still haven’t given a good reason for genital mutilation. Some muslim nations agree with you when they believe that genital mutilation is acceptable. They don’t have any good reason for it either. You say what business is it of mine to judge. I say that rape is wrong and I believe that it is my business to say so. I believe that incest is wrong and it is my business to say that it is wrong. I believe that gender mutilation is wrong and it is my business to say so. According to your logic it is not my business to judge an atrocity equal to these examples. Your sanctimony is noted.
“What if there IS a reason to do it? What business is it of yours to judge? How does that affect you?”:
Said every pederast everwhere.
What if there IS a reason to do it? What business is it of yours to judge? How does that affect you?
Think, if these questions from Svelaz sound familiar, it’s because it’s the same my body, my choice, but for minors. A cup of coffee ago the argument was it was rare. Now it’s so what, shut up bigot, it’s none of your business These people are sociopaths. There really isn’t any reasoning with them.
Olly, it’s someone else private choice. How is it your business? You wouldn’t tolerate that kind of judgment from others on your choices. It’s telling how you avoid the questions. Instead focus on ad hominems
“ Svelaz, you still haven’t given a good reason for genital mutilation. Some muslim nations agree with you when they believe that genital mutilation is acceptable”
It seems you’re confusing two very different issues. Genital mutilation and sex change procedures are not the same thing.
Obviously you’re conflating multiple issues into one thing. No wonder you’re bloviating over the something you clearly don’t understand.
” Genital mutilation and sex change procedures are not the same thing.”
They are, as soon as it is realized the surgery wasn’t a good idea.
Svelaz, you think Tit got your words wrong.
I think he is right and your desires abuse children.
Read about a Drag Queen story hour in TX where ANTIFA showed up to provide “security.”
THAT, and “Family Friendly” Drag Queen shows are happening.
Exposing young children to that kind of thing ten years ago would of landed more than a few people in jail.
Now, they are trying to normalize it.
Children aren’t being mutilated or abused. Those claims are being spread about by bigots who are doing it for the sake of being bigots and ur buying into it hook line and sinker.
You are a Lying Troll. So now you want us to believe Tucker Carlson is a bigot for reporting the truth.
https://www.city-journal.org/moral-atrocity-top-surgery
Now do your best to defend child sex traffickers because they had gotten consent from their victims.
Olly, Tucker is deliberately misrepresenting extremely rare cases as the norm. Yes he’s being a disingenuous bigot.
Olly, Tucker is deliberately misrepresenting extremely rare cases as the norm.
Extremely rare? How are you defining that? Back alley by some rogue monster of a doctor in Nowheresville USA? Or compared with the total number of children in the USA? I recall President Bill Clinton claiming he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare,” 60+ million abortions later, no one is claiming it’s rare any longer. Regardless of how you quantify extremely rare, what isn’t rare at all is finding a doctor already providing these surgeries for minors. Raising the alarm that an entire assembly line industry has been developed to first groom elementary aged children and then through “gender-affirming care,” complete their transition, is not “disingenuous bigotry.” it is Sun Tzu know your enemy level wisdom.
Your word salad is simply a deflection from the fact that you can’t refute.
How about backing up your claim?
“ what isn’t rare at all is finding a doctor already providing these surgeries for minors. Raising the alarm that an entire assembly line industry has been developed to first groom elementary aged children and then through “gender-affirming care,” complete their transition, is not “disingenuous bigotry.”
What’s your evidence that it isn’t rare?
Svelaz, I don’t give a damn about whether there is an assembly line or not. I repeat myself. Yesterday you said it wasn’t happening at all but today you say that it’s not happening very much. First you deny and then you minimize. This is an easily recognizes pattern to your thinking. First you said that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation and now that it’s been shown to be authentic by of all places CBS you tell us that it’s no big deal. Deny first and when the truth comes out you minimize. It’s just the way you roll.
Your word salad is simply a deflection from the fact that you can’t refute.
“Word Salad”: A logical series of thoughts Svelaz cannot process.
What’s your evidence that it isn’t rare?
I never asserted it was or was not rare. For clarity, I asked you how you define extremely rare? That so called word salad you couldn’t process merely put the concept of rarity into context by citing another hideous practice that was once touted as safe, legal and rare. It didn’t remain “rare” for long, as the abortion rights advocates shifted their movement from a “rare” medical necessity to one of “my body, my choice” form of birth control.
Regardless of how you quantify extremely rare, what isn’t rare at all is finding a doctor already providing these surgeries for minors. Raising the alarm that an entire assembly line industry has been developed to first groom elementary aged children and then through “gender-affirming care,” complete their transition, is not “disingenuous bigotry.” it is Sun Tzu “know your enemy” level wisdom.
I couldn’t care any less that you dispute my claim. It is a fact that gender-based curriculum is being utilized in early childhood education into secondary education. It is a fact that laws exist on the books to allow minors to get gender-altering surgery without parental consent. So yes, a lucrative industry exists and the number of cases are on the rise. If being called a bigot because one opposes mutilating the genitalia of children, then you need to own being called a groomer for defending it.
TiT,
“ Yesterday you said it wasn’t happening at all but today you say that it’s not happening very much. First you deny and then you minimize.”
Pay attention man, your paranoid delusions are getting the better of you.
Svelaz, I wrote about the castration of boys and you unequivocally stated that it’s not happening. Now you say it’s only happening a little bit. Please describe to us under what conditions you think that a young boys testicles should be severed from his body. Deny, minimize and say that those that don’t agree with you are delusional. I will out right say that castrating young boys is crazy. If in saying so I risk the chance that someone like you will say that I am demented than so be it. There his one thing we know for sure. You are the one who’s holding the bloody scalpel.
It’s big business and a lot of money is involved.
“It’s big business and a lot of money is involved.”
That same thought crossed my mind too.
How sick would that be if this sudden interest in getting children to trans is nothing more than about money?
“Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities”
Why would it be Carlson’s business what others choose to do?
that begs the question. What business of yours, what Carlson says?
“Why would it be Carlson’s business what others choose to do?”
You like destroying young children’s bodies. I agree with Carlson. You shouldn’t be permitted to cause such destruction to their bodies.
You like men in the woman’s room. I agree with Carlson that you, as a male, shouldn’t be in the ladies room.
On MSNBC, Figliuzzi declared;
…”We need to see accountability and consequences… If he’s a consumer of the people we just rattled off, from Lauren Boebert to Tucker Carlson. Let’s get it out. Let’s get it out at trial.”
Svelaz;
MSNBC was making that point. It was not seeking civil court punishment
Svelaz spends a lot of time lecturing for some one that has the reading comprehension of a turnip.
CNN … “It’s a mostly peaceful riot”
The “summer of love” rioters were consumers of Leftist rhetoric, “and those people should face civil consequences from the victims.”
That would be a massive civil suit that would bankrupt a lot of bad people. So maybe he’s onto something.
Worth repeating…What’s the difference between a Leftist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with the terrorist.
JAFO——good one.
And I still love the old adage, attributed to Bill Kristol’s father:
“A (neo)conservative is a liberal who got mugged by reality”
*Like I don’t have a WordPress account so I’m unable to click on the star. 🙂
“A consumer of the people”? What does that even mean? If this rant had come from anywhere other than MSNBC, I’d be concerned. But on that clown show it’s the norm. Every unhinged Democrat gets interviewed without editing on MSNBC. They have the most racist hosts than any network anywhere. They don’t have even the slightest pretense of being objective, truthful, or sane. That said, if the deranged left has moved from canceling to prosecution, it should be stopped in its tracks — although, note that the attempt to connect what certain people say with actions that take place by others after the fact, is exactly what the Democrats are trying to prosecute Trump for.
When the product can not sell itself nor with the help of competent leadership, melodrama and sensationalist misinformation will tank your business. No doubt MSNBC Execs are saying, “thank God for CNN”
😉
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-is-no-1-network-for-2022-election-night-coverage-as-total-audience-falls-from-2018/518205/
2022 Midterm Election Common Coverage (Nielsen Live+SD data)
8 – 11 pm ET: (Total Viewers | A25-54 demo)
Fox News: 7,422,000 / 1,879,000
ABC: 3,307,000 / 900,000
MSNBC: 3,210,000 / 782,000
NBC: 3,107,000 / 1,058,000
CNN: 2,608,000 / 1,059,000
CBS: 2,561,000 / 701,000
FBN: 629,000 / 229,000
The result was similar for the full coverage, with Fox News finishing as the No. 1 cable network in all audience measurements.
2022 Midterm Election Full Cable News Coverage (Nielsen Live+SD data)
6 p.m. – 2 a.m. ET (Total Viewers | A25-54 demo)
FNC: 5,629,000 / 1,392,000
MSNBC: 2,664,000 / 481,000
CNN: 2,049,000 / 661,000
By the standards you present, the saying “never underestimate stupid people in large groups” would apply.
Brian Stelter, you need to get over FOX News cleaning your clock in ratings and your subsequent termination from CNN
As usual FishWings tell us that everyone who doesn’t think like he thinks is stupid. Even when presented with the evidence he chooses willful blindness. Narcissist thy name is FishWings. I offer as an example some evidence concerning FishWing’s view on things that he has expressed in the past that have now been found to be untrue. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/copy-of-hunter-biden-laptop-data-appears-genuine-independent-experts-find/#x. FishWings and his leftist friends on this blogs joined the “Russian Disinformation” chorus in full throated wailing. We have another example here of the no all see all FishWings presentations.
But strategically, what appears to be happening is they want to deny people the safe haven and safe harbor,
When it comes to sexual grooming, gender mutilation and pedophilia, these predators should absolutely have no safe haven, safe harbor or sanctuary.
I’m sure Figiliuzzi is thrilled to be provided with unmistakable proof that someone was actually listening to his fatuous remarks.
The outrage of MSNBC is the last gasp of the last rat on a sinking ship. I would try to save the rat but not MSNBC. The rat has greater potential. The last time I saw anything interesting on MSNBC was when Tea Leoni played a reporter on that network in DEEP IMPACT. For those who missed it, this was an extinction level event involving a meteor. The world eventually survived but not Tea or MSNBC. There is always some good in the darkest of days. The rats, of course also survived.
Freedom requires tolerance. Sometimes you need to agree to disagree. Can’t do that with left wing ideologues. For Star Trek fans….. They are the Borg, you will be assimilated.
“Time has blurred our memories, words have stilled our feelings, but we remember the man and the day, and feel a muted sorrow.”
No tolerance for groomers or pedos! NONE.
Tucker Carlson routinely distinguishes between adults who choose to take sex hormones and seek cosmetically to alter their bodies to appear more like the other sex and the same as applied to minors. Most recently, he has called out so-called gender affirming care and hormonal and surgical interventions for minors, none of which has a sound evidentiary base for being safe or effective. He has been particularly critical of hospitals and doctors. He is right that these practices will in due course be looked back at in horror.
Daniel
Tucker understands the oldest bits of knowledge. “Follow the Money” or as said by one of “the squad”. “It’s all about the Benjamins”. As a physician I can agree with that statement. A notable Pediatrician at Vanderbilt admitted that money was big driver in setting up their anticipated “gender affirming service” and surgery in a semi public talk that was captured on tape. Hell followed at her heels and legislation is in the process of banning this service in Tennessee. I rarely invoke God but I think that we will not be forgiven this transgression since these are children in our care. Adults make their own decisions.
GEB, I totally agree. Matt Walsh exposed the money motivation of doctors and hospitals through a recently published video. Pharmaceutical companies also benefit hugely, through the creation of patients with lifetime demand.
Adults can take drugs and mutilate themselves if they please; this should not be allowed for children, given the current lack of evidence. And the schools should stop accepting “social transition,” which the Cass review in the UK characterised as an “active intervention” that should be adopted only following an extensive period of psychological analysis and counselling. “Social transition” makes the progression to drugs and surgery considerably more likely.
DeSantis and Ladapo are among the few fighting this abomination in the US. The UK and a number of countries in Europe are doing so as well.
Better Jonathan. why THEY THINK said views should be rejected.by others.
The first four letters of analyst spell…???
I thought perhaps it was hyperbole to say we’re over the edge and falling into the abyss, but no longer. The inmates are in charge of the asylum and America, like Rome before her, is in decline, only faster.
Marxists pipedream NO ONE is taking our guns.
Our guns are the remedy for YOUR tyranny.
100+ million gun owners and 700 million guns.
Pass any unconstitutional law you like “We the People” will not comply.
Careful National Socialist Democrat WOKE Party we may decide to vote with the ammo box instead of the ballot box.
Say when.
Stupid progressives say stupid things.
“Stupid progressives”‘ Pardon me, but that’s redundant.
If they were honest, they’d admit that the real problem with Tucker is that his ratings are too high.
I remember when MSNBC was brand new. Chris Matthews declared that “MSNBC” stood for
“More Stuff Nobody Cares about”!
Let’s ask the MSNBC guy if Schumer is responsible for the attempt on Justice Kavanaugh. Or maybe if the MSNBC racists are responsible for the Christmas massacre by the guy running over people at the Christmas Parade in WI last year. Or if the MSNBC racists, Reid, Sharpton and Cross, are responsible for any of the attacks on Asians or whites by Black people in NY and CA the last few years. How about suing CNN for saying that riots are sometimes violent and that it is ok when the guy guarding the jewelry, a Black retired cop, store is murdered.
The “reporters and “analysts” on MSNBC and CNN are getting dumber, more extreme and more absurd every day. It really is painfully dumb.
hullhobby: You have a great mind. Bringing up past transgressions from the other side that are swept under the rug in order to get to some newer, dumber ideas to throw at the wall to see what sticks. Another contemporary issue is two ignoramuses on the Left bringing up Alito for supposedly leaking a SCOTUS decision in 2014, all the while ignoring the leak of the Roe v Wade overturn recently. They want hearings and accountability…RIGHT NOW!
I suggest that taking seriously anything said at anytime by anyone on MSNBC might be a waste of intellectual energy. The MSNBC bar for intelligence, judgment and common sense is so low as to be almost nonexistent. Luckily, their regular leftist lunatic viewership continues to fall.
Jonathan wrote, “MSNBC and Figliuzzi are perfectly within their rights to condemn Boebert, Carlson, or others for their viewpoints. That is the essence of free speech. They can respond to what they view as bad speech with better speech. However, the way to convince others that these views are wrong is not to seek the silencing of the speakers, but to present the reasons why those views should be rejected by others.”
Well said.
It really is too bad that the 21st century totalitarians dominating the political left don’t see it that way, they’re absurdly illogical, they’re anti status quo, anti-American, anti-Constitution and anti-Liberty. They have literally become the enemy of the people that they project upon the political right.
The white nationalists and neoNazis are part of the political right. They’re “absurdly illogical, they’re anti status quo, anti-American, anti-Constitution and anti-Liberty. They have literally become the enemy of the people.” You’re unwillingness to see these people on both the left AND the right suggests that you’ve got a huge blind spot.
Anonymous:
The fact that you actually think you can make a fair comparison between speech by actual Nazis and speech by journalists on MSNBC demonstrates why the left doesn’t want to get into a debate with anyone. You are clueless. Show me a major news network run by actual Nazis, one that has the complete freedom on the air to spew out its hate, and you might have a case. But to compare a small group of ultra-nationals, who are rarely ever heard from except when caught in an FBI sting, to popular journalists that crank out leftists garbage 24/7 to millions everyday, is just absurd.
GioCon,
Yes it’s likely that some of the white nationalists and neoNazis are part of the political right just like some are part of the political left, this kind of racist hate crosses all political aisles; also, yes it’s true that those ignorant hateful bigots are a very, very tiny percentage of both political leanings, but these facts really don’t matter to an attack-dog internet troll cyberstalking their prey.
Cyberstalking internet trolls, like Anonymous/Safeside824, present these both sides are doing it as their only argument so they can use it to deflect and then to attack the integrity of the commenter based on assumptions and their deflection. The attack always follows the same process, first you assume that A=B, A & B are both immoral, the prey only talked about A and didn’t talk about B, therefore the prey is a willful hypocrite and a partisan hack. Of course neither of these things are actually true (internet trolls are liars) but their deflection and defamation might incite an argument and draw attention away from the initial commentary and those are their real goals. Trolls dive into this trolling tactic as their only argument because they’re too damned ignorant to present an intellectual retort to counter what they are replying to, they want their prey to spend all their time defending themself, it’s pure trolling.
Try not to feed the trolls, feeding them enables them. As far as I’m concerned, cyberstalking internet trolls can FO and crawl back under their hive mind numbing immoral rock.
The neoNazis and white nationalist are the National Socialist Democrat Party.
Marxists always rewriting history.
Philip Bump: “The show that has talked about trans people, grooming and “sexualization” the most in the past year? Tucker Carlson’s.”
Kat Abu: “This is from literally one minute ago. [Tucker Carlson] has been working with rightwing media to carefully create a narrative that equates LGBTQ people with pedophilia. It’s dangerous, cruel, and completely on purpose. @AriDrennen compiled some of these examples about back in September: …”
video in the tweet
https://twitter.com/abughazalehkat/status/1594860568573538304
Anonymous, it has NOTHING to do with LGBTQ people and you know it, it has to do with TRANS activists trying to normalize talking to LITTLE KIDS about gender and sexuality to the point of making TRANS READING HOUR a fun and normal event.
I am guessing that the vast majority of gay people are disgusted with trans swimmers beating girls, trans people changing in girls locker rooms, trans men waving their fannies in the faces of 5 year old children. There is nothing GAY about it.
Within your inane comment you failed to state whether or not Carlson should be liable. If so then should Joy Reid be liable for the Black guy in WI that killed 8 white people with his car? How about Sharpton and Freddie’s Food Mart? How about Bernie and Steve Scalise?
Guys like Anonymous and Svelaz are incapable of seeing an issue that goes against their “side” and being able to agree that their side is wrong. It is the disease of contrarianism. A weird mental disorder that affects the weak-minded who are frustrated attorneys who believe that they can argue any absurd case all the while not realizing that they are making fools out of themselves.
HullBobby,
Well said.
The group, Gays Against Groomers, got their account closed from PayPal.
Upstate, the good news is that Elon is thinking about adding some sort of video service to Twitter and maybe that will end the censoriousness of Youtube. Paypal should be shunned for the action you referenced.
Anyone who wants can already upload video to Twitter.
@Anonymous they’re grooming.
So left wing trash like Philp Bump and Media Matters are trying to manipulate a deranged left wing lunatic into assassinating Tucker Carlson.
It’s evil. They will have blood on their hands if they are successful. So will you.
Totally agree! But must add the caveat that “left wing trash” and “deranged left wing lunatic” are redundancies.
“video in the tweet”
Youre quoting a college student with a picture of her in a dorm and a bunk bed.
SMH. sad
And the poor “Lost Generation” ‘college’ cretin is trying to communicate….”like….like….like….like….like…. you know….like…. what I mean?” Yeah, honey, we “got” it!