like i don't give a shit about tuck but in what reality is simply talking to the "enemy" some kind of punishable offense. y'all supposed to be all about free press, are they not free to speak to bad people?
Actually I kind of think the whole “get all precious about free speech” thing is kind of played out and mostly right wing bullshit anyhow
yeah but catching libs in a bind about it when 60% of their ideology is malding at hypocrisy is kinda funny
Are they free to spread enemy propaganda? We're talking about Tucker Carlson here, not an actual journalist.
Y'all act like Russians have figured out hypnosis and seeing anything they say will instantly corrupt a person's brain. I really don't get it.
If he's not a journalist then what's the big deal? Tuck is already a propagandist for oil money and he's been a professional apologist for capital since before his bowtie days. Is it suddenly a crime when he also talks to Russians?
For clarity's sake I also don't care what happens to Tucker Carlson. Throw him in the ocean for all I care, but for a good reason, not just talking to Russian politicians lmao. Tucker Carlson has been a professional white supremacist homophobic asshole for decades, except now that he's talking to Putin he's suddenly a problem? That's ridiculous to me.
What about what about what about.
Yes, Tucker is a media whore for whomever is slipping singles up his ass. The topic was Russia, but sure, I very much agree that capital is as foreign to me as any foreign government.
No country openly allows foreign propaganda from hostile countries to be broadcast in their country without restrictions, Russia being among the most extreme in this regard. It's not about fear, it's about not being idiotic.
The fuck do you mean what about? They are SPECIFICALLY not doing what about ism here
The fuck is wrong with you lmao
Capital is as foreign to you as a foreign government? What do you mean by this? Also foreign propaganda is totally allowed. Once again I'll point you to the Vietnam War, free speech laws meant that totally uncensored footage of the atrocities being committed were broadcast and criticized. The media/military industrial complex tightened the grip extensively in response, but through corporate acquisitions and private soft power not by sanctioning journalists or especially non-journalists. Not being a journalist and being silenced is kind of an even bigger deal.
enemy propaganda
enemy of whom? afaik Ukraine isn't the one bringing this, the EU is. on what basis should the EU suppress the speech of Russians if there is not a state of war between them?
I was using the framing of the comment I was responding to but, yeah Russia is an enemy to both the US and Europe, with or without a war. The Russian government is nothing but a cartel at this point. Not that the US is a whole lot better in many regards, but at least political assassinations aren't something we got used to.
I very clearly didn't say that the US doesn't assassinate people. We just have much tighter seals on our windows.
If spreading propaganda should result in sanctions, do you support corresponding sanctions against Voice of America and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute?
It doesn't matter what I support because I don't live in the countries that would have a problem with those, but I sure expect that they will block what they can.
Anyways, we aren't going to stop Tucker from spreading his verbal diarrhea anyways. Maybe we could just throw him out a window afterwards as a warning to others.
Propaganda from county I like = doesn't matter lol.
Propaganda from country I don't like = BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!
It doesn't matter what I say because I'm not someone who'd have a problem with those statements, but I sure expect that they will block what they can.
And? You really don't get the difference? I really can't see how to take you seriously, and I'm not interested in fucking with you, so bye.
No, I fully understand the difference. You like propaganda that you agree with, dislike propaganda you don't agree with and wish death upon its creators. You don't have a problem with propaganda per se.
Our enemy is not the abstract concept of Russia, or the people who live there. Me, you and them share a common enemy: capital.
Tucker isn't interviewing the people who live there, he's interviewing the very concrete embodiment of the abstract concept of the Russian government that is absolutely our enemy. Tucker is himself a concrete representative of our common enemy, capital.
Our enemy
Don't try to tell me who my enemy is nerd, I know who my enemy is. It's the people who put these bizzare nationalist ideas in your head. You're talking like a medieval serf would talk about a rival kingdom, when it's our own aristocracy that's menacing the entire world.
are you in any danger of becoming Russian and owing anything to Putin? No, you're not. Disentangle the nationalism from your brain. Russia isn't a threat to you and it's not your enemy, it's a threat to your country's shareholders.
So, you acknowledge that Putin is threatening the US. Well, that's progress of a sort. (I can play your stupid games too.)
It does deserve to be threatened, but not by criminal regimes that share every negative aspect and add so many more. Putin's Russia doesn't threaten to overthrow the American oligarchy and put Americans in control, it threatens to strengthen that oligarchy and bend it to Putin's will. That is absolutely a threat to America, in every possible sense.
Comic book movies and their consequencesLook out, Putin is seeking the infinity stones!
So, it's crazy to assume that one of the worlds largest influence operations might exert some influence. Yeah, that's the sensible take. Putin isn't a comic villain, he's just a modern crime boss with access to a state level intelligence agency.
Let's turn that around: who has the world's largest influence operation, and what makes you think it hasn't affected you? Your relationship with propaganda is that of a fish that doesn't know it's wet. You genuinely think that the Russian Federation wants to take over America, that's how a small child thinks lmao
Let's turn it around again and look at the country so afraid of a mythical NATO invasion that they invaded a neighboring country and created unimaginable tragedy for nothing. If NATO were threatening Russia, what better time than this moment to invade? Russia has proven it's military to be a bad joke riddled with corruption and incompetence and embroiled itself in a conflict it can't resolve, meanwhile NATO is bigger and stronger than ever. Where is the invasion Putin feared so much?
I got a solid public education, then went on to study philosophy and theology in college at a private university. Then I traveled the world and leaned more. I'm in my fifties now and never stopped learning. Assume what you want about me, but by eyes are open and I'm not child.
I never said Russia wants to take over America BTW. They want influence, and have not been as unsuccessful as I would like in that endeavor. Your reading comprehension is shit and you might want to work on that.
Lol holy shit you should have just lied and said you were like 15, everyone already thought so and it would have been so much more understandable to behave this way in the presence of people who actually know what they're talking about.
I got a solid public education, then went on to study philosophy and theology in college at a private university. Then I traveled the world and leaned more. I'm in my fifties now and never stopped learning. Assume what you want about me, but by eyes are open and I'm not child.
So you got an sheltered education in the sheltered imperial core at its peak and then used that blood money to go do a sheltered little tour. That doesn't make you anymore intelligent that a patron of Disneyland.
You are a child. The first step to learning is realising that you know nothing.
If you say so, but maybe you would be a little more convincing if you weren't literally defending Russian imperialism.
Literally 
When you're so propagandized that you believe that Russian imperialism is a thing that exists, and not believing whatever your pathologically lying empire says about its rivals means you must love them. Lead poisoning and cable news doing it's thing.
I was 6 for the Iraq War and I even learned from that one, what the fuck is your excuse? 22 years ago you'd be calling people Saddam lovers and burning Dixie Chicks records, you dumb motherfucker.
I'm not a salesperson trying to convince you of anything. It's your loss if you choose to remain ignorant.
Russia is the way it is because of the meddling of the US during the Cold War. I am more than happy to shit on modern Russia but I refuse to empower the propaganda of the US imperial core while doing so.
I'm in my fifties now and never stopped learning
Obviously that's a lie lmao
Is it the same reason Yanks gorge themselves on shitty fast food?
I wouldn't know. I couldn't even tell you the last time this "yank" are fast food.
You know that national representation, how laws and rights work as well as international relations aren't at all guided by your opinions or lifestyle right? Your lack of fast food consumption has nothing to do at all with the Americans who do or the comparative stereotype your comment that was removed for racism (I know cause I'm.the oen who reported it). Stop being so self involved and blockheaded.
Bruh everything you eat is full of corn syrup and addictive slop
The EU is itself a concrete representative of our common enemy, capital.
Last I checked America is not at war with Russia and regardless, yes free speech includes Enemy Propaganda. Should people who protested the Vietnam War have been sanctioned?
LOL, comparing Tucker Carlson to a Vietnam protester is even more of a stretch than calling him a journalist.
No, of course we shouldn't have sanctioned Vietnam war protesters, though I would argue that we actually did. It's an insult to compare them with a disingenuous cultist giving Putin a bullhorn pointed straight at the most gullible people in American society. People like Tucker were the ones suppressing those protesters.
They both spread enemy propaganda. Your opinion of someone has nothing at all to do with it. Either enemy propaganda should be covered as free speech or shouldn't. You don't get to pick and choose based on your opinion cause laws don't work like that for a good fucking reason.
I don't even believe in free speech (as in like, as a concept it's meaningless) but at least I get how laws work.
America has plenty of ways to allow free speech without really allowing free speech. The Internet blew up their controls for a while, but they have speech they don't like pretty well quarantined again.
In Russia, the state dominates corporations. In America, corporations dominate the state. In either case, it ultimately ends up looking pretty much the same, though I think corruption in Russia has been quite a bit worse. Most of our leaders can still fool themselves into thinking they are virtuous, and that gives the people at least some ability to push back.
Are they free to spread enemy propaganda?
Yes. Yes they are. Do you even know what the first amendment is???
In authoritarian bad country, professional bowtie journalists spread racist hatred to cause dissent among the impoverished for the sake of the elite ruling class, but they are forbidden from speaking to foreign enemies
Why does the page have a “fairness” feedback meter, and how is enlightened centrism “factual and fair”?
Show
The more opinions you have the more biased you are, thus sitting on your ass and accepting the status quo is the purest form of thinking possible.
Because question-begging centrism is all that any of these really are
Enlightened centrism has exactly 57 miligrams of fairness which is the recommended daily dose for adults. Your health will suffer if you get too much or too little fairness.
Bringing balance to the Force was a lie. The Jedi played us for fools. Execute Order 66. Palpatine did nothing wrong.
the sheer hysteria over this is equal parts hilarious and revealing
#BlueAnon report:
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: smells like russian troll
Freedom of the press and protection of journalists in the West. If he went to talk to Netanyahu no one would have minded.
Too true. Our Media publishes all of Israels lies on the front page with a tiny quote that attributes it to the IDF.
They repeat those lies over multiple articles. And they keep quoting those lies. Over and over.
But one interview with Putin is a line too far...
Main difference is that one is an evil war criminal while the other is a "good" war criminal
Tucker Carlson is a fascist prick but this is ridiculous. He interviewed a guy and made it public. He did basic journalism. It might not be good journalism and it might be biased against the official party line but it is not like he has shot up an Ukrainian orphanage or something.
Tucker spouting white supremacist homophobic transphobic speech
EU sleeps
Tucker flies to the EU or Russia to talk to another right winger about the weather or some shit
EU freak out
Really lets you know what their priorities are.
I know this is obvious but it's so disheartening seeing the right monopolizing aspects of communist rhetoric just due to the amount of capital giving it a massive platform.
It's wild to me how many allegedly left-leaning or "liberal" people who say they believe in open societies, free expression, etc will gladly throw all that out the window if it means they get to punish somebody they disagree with. This trend has really picked up the last 10 years or so. Fuck tucker carlson but he has a right to speak freely and it's terrifying that the government can sanction a journalist, even a shitty one, for the crime of interviewing somebody.
Jailing or sanctioning journalists and critics is some shit Putin and other despots do, let's not emulate him. I would stand with anybody who is sanctioned by the government for their speech regardless of how much I disagree with it.
Societies which stifle dissent, especially using the power of the state, grow weaker because they aren't able to effectively adapt to change. Remember it is not too long ago that advocating for gay marriage would have been seen as morally deviant and repugnant. But strong speech protections allow us as a society to have that discussion and come to the correct conclusion which is that it's fine to be gay, that love is love, and that gay people deserve equal protection under the law.
Jailing or sanctioning journalists and critics is some shit Putin and other despots do, let's not emulate him.
Let's not pretend that whichever western states are included in "us" here aren't similarly despotic. It makes little difference whether you kill the journalist yourself or have a dog like Israel do it and then cover for them.
I would stand with anybody who is sanctioned by the government for their speech regardless of how much I disagree with it.
Hate speech is bad and dying on the hill that people should be able to advocate for genocide is nothing but useful idiocy for fascists.
None of this is especially relevant to the particulars of this case, obviously Putin has mostly rather banal things to say, because it's either a: correct, b: wretchedly chauvinist in a way that Republicans agree with (e.g. homophobia), or c: that weird revanchist shit that doesn't mean anything. I just think your ideology is intellectually and practically suicidal and wanted to comment on part of it.
Yeah Tucker should have been thrown off the air years ago for hate speech, not just talking to a Russian. Talking to Putin is nothing compared to the years of transphobic racist drivel he's spewed. It's such a clear bias in what free press in America actually entails.
Dude spouted great replacement theory on his fucking show! Any government or party serious about stopping fascism would have jailed him over that
I agree with you in part, but:
Societies which stifle dissent, especially using the power of the state, grow weaker because they aren't able to effectively adapt to change. Remember it is not too long ago that advocating for gay marriage would have been seen as morally deviant and repugnant. But strong speech protections allow us as a society to have that discussion and come to the correct conclusion which is that it's fine to be gay, that love is love, and that gay people deserve equal protection under the law.
Free speech is also allowing a massive, astroturfed campaign to spread transphobia. The people with the most money have the loudest voices, and printing sensationalist bigotry to provoke fear, anger, and hate gets the clicks which makes more money.
What makes it especially terrifying, and I'm speaking from personal experience, is that you don't know who's on the other side of the screen. Most people in the target audience will just get a little pissy and keep clicking headlines (and voting to take away rights), but there's also people who are unstable, whether due to drugs or psychological issues or simply being too deep into the narrative. When you have for example far-right media outlets saying trans people are pedophiles, and more mainstream sources validating that perspective in not so many words, and that's being broadcast to some meth head watching hours on end every day, then I'm not really a fan of that speech being free.
Just last weekend, for instance, some queer friends and I were threatened by an unstable person with a metal pipe just walking down the street, idk how much the media plays into that but I also had a family member who did what I described above, shooting up meth and watching shit like OAN all day every day. And even regular people who watch too much cable news, and it doesn't even matter that much what they watch, if you try to reason with them, no matter how much sense you make or what facts you have on your side, it's one conversation vs all the time they've spent watching the news - I like to compare it to trying to win an argument when the other side gets to say 100 words (or more) every time you say 1. In this way, good ideas don't always win in the marketplace of ideas.
But yeah I agree with your overall point, sanctioning someone for interviewing a world leader is some bullshit, fuck Tucker Carlson but it's always important to understand rival geopolitical powers.
This instance of an unstable person consuming content online and then and going to hurt people in real life is scary, but I'd propose that maybe unstable people who hurt people based on what they read are kind of inevitably going to end up on that trajectory regardless of the freedom of our speech spaces. And that maybe it's not worth sacrificing the free speech of all people simply because a few people are going to do bad things, even if that speech in part motivated them.
What you're describing where people end up in their own media bubble is exactly why we need more open access to speech and free, neutral platforms for people to have these kinds of discussions on. There is a major push in society for everybody to splinter off into spaces where everybody agrees with them and, idk, that's exactly what happens to people when they go down the quanon/OAN/etc rabbit hole. We have lost to many "third spaces" in public where we might have these kinds of discussions and everybody keeps getting more polarized.
The problem with hate speech the last 10 years has much more to do with the "I get in 1 word, they get in 100" problem than anything else. When you get into where people get their news, social media is a big part of that puzzle and Facebook et al has been able to put their thumb on the scale in a major way to spread hateful divisive content. Nazis has access to the internet in the 90s and 2000s, but they were in their own little bubbles and couldn't do a whole lot. It's social media that gave them a real platform by incentivizing their content and choosing, algorithmically, to promote posts which got "engagement". Likes are engagement, angry reacts are engagement, comments are engagement. Reddit had a decent system with incentivizing upvotes, but incentivizing all engagement? You get civil wars. Not only did this incentivization mechanism make divisive content more likely to show up in people's feeds, but it created a financial incentive for those posters to make divisive content and it made Facebook's bottom line predicated on divisive content.
People are scared of the spread of hate speech and the right in the right wing it's causing and they are ready to throw "free speech" as a concept out because they are so afraid of it. We don't need to do that. What we need to do is take away the power social media companies have to influence the types and quantity of information we receive. If we do that, online hate speech will retreat back into it's little bubble and it will be a thing 1% of people hear and get influenced by, not 30%. Luckily, I think this is already happening. Fedi is a good move in this direction.
but I'd propose that maybe unstable people who hurt people based on what they read are kind of inevitably going to end up on that trajectory regardless of the freedom of our speech spaces
You say that, but do you have any evidence for it? Are we just going to brush off the mentally unwell people that cults like QAnon prey upon as being a lost cause? As being people who would just be violent because the seeds of sin in their souls compel them to? You're just arguing for a secularized version of Calvinism that is even more reliant on faith because it lacks the element of theological reasoning.
And that maybe it's not worth sacrificing the free speech of all people simply because a few people are going to do bad things
Maybe this obfuscates relevant factors, like how money controls media and it's not just a matter of private citizens vs other private citizens.
What you're describing where people end up in their own media bubble is exactly why we need more open access to speech
It takes more of an argument than you have so far put forward to prove this, though I agree with you in a way that I suspect you would reject. Specifically, the blackballing of journalists and other sources who provide more useful explanations than exist in mainstream American Discourse is definitely part of the reason people resort to cults.
That said, if we are discounting questions like Class consciousness, your thesis falls apart entirely. These bubbles are largely self-selecting, based on marketing algorithms for the consumer-lifestyle brands that you call American politics. There is nothing stopping a brain-rotted Twitter Q freak from going on some socdem hive on Reddit, but they don't want to and they have been encouraged to this mindset by various forms of conditioning on the multi-billion dollar skinner boxes that are social media platforms. Of course, there are less polarized spaces and ones designed for "open debate" (and again Reddit provides an excellent example of these empty gestures) but overwhelmingly what we see there is more tribalism, just with a different set of etiquette.
This shows one of the many significant failures of idealist fetishization of open society: People only have so much time and effort to put into research, especially more nebulous ideological subjects. Ideology is first and foremost a survival strategy, and people will budget their finite resources based on what they are able to project as best serving them from the limited information they operate within, starting from environments that are overwhelmingly controlled by the rich in neoliberal societies. You already have your goddam Marketplace of Idea and it has failed.
free, neutral platforms for people to have these kinds of discussions on.
Neutrality doesn't exist and the bodies that claim to be neutral are just question-begging their own ideology.
Some people used to think that the internet would end war, but they were operating on a type of idealism similar to your own.
Is the tendency for devisive content to be promoted a quirk of certain social media platforms, or is something more inherent? I'd argue that people are more likely to click on something if it presents a message of, "You are under attack!!" as opposed to say, "Firefighter rescues kitten from tree!" because the former invokes more and more powerful emotions. Brains are designed to seek out and pay attention to threats, and I think even something like a print newspaper is going to be subject to that incentive, at least to a degree.
The other question I have is:
What we need to do is take away the power social media companies have to influence the types and quantity of information we receive.
Do you mean through state regulation, or just consumer choice?
Is the tendency for devisive content to be promoted a quirk of certain social media platforms, or is something more inherent? I’d argue that people are more likely to click on something if it presents a message of, “You are under attack!!” as opposed to say, “Firefighter rescues kitten from tree!” because the former invokes more and more powerful emotions. Brains are designed to seek out and pay attention to threats, and I think even something like a print newspaper is going to be subject to that incentive, at least to a degree.
You're right. And it's both. But social media has greatly accelerated our ability to exploit/be vulnerable to that quirk of the human brain. Specifically, the promotion of content based on interaction alone is the problem. It's a policy choice by social media companies that has disastrous consequences for humanity.
Do you mean through state regulation, or just consumer choice?
Consumer choice and divestment. Brands are pulling out of Twitter, we need more of that from Meta and for them and/or consumers to recognize the dangers of using that platform. Consciousness-raising etc. People are recognizing the dangers of social media and centralization of the public square (though they may not use those terms), these platforms are hemorrhaging users, things are moving in the right direction. Musk and Spez are the best promoters of the fediverse we could ask for. And we need platforms like Fedi to mature and capture that audience. I think there's a balancing act here to make sure we have safe online spaces for people to participate in (that are federated) while allowing the expression of a diversity of viewpoints so we don't continue down the rabbit hole of polarization. One of the big problems with online public squares is the inability to tell intentions of commenters ie is that person genuinely "just asking questions" or is this a troll attempt? Reputation systems may help with this.
State regulation of this area is really tricky, all the proposals I've seen so far are pretty ripe for abuse by the government and I don't want to give them that kind of power. They also make it harder for smaller sites and federations to exist since regulatory burdens limit who can run social media sites to only companies with money to pay lawyers.
I suppose time will tell whether that trend will grow to the point of being really significant. I don't really trust the state as it stands to regulate speech in my interests. I do still believe in deplatforming hate speech when possible, and I don't really see the marketplace of ideas as being reliable due to certain ideas having stronger signals, either from monetary backing or grabbing attention. As things stand though, I don't really have a better answer than just personally using the fediverse over big social media sites.
I have to agree with your overall sentiment. However, there's at least a valid argument to be made that providing a media mouthpiece for Putin, who many consider a war criminal, has the potential to increase global unrest and lead to additional deaths in a way that few examples of protected speech do.
Or Winston "I am highly in favor of using poison gas on uncivilized tribes" Churchill
Dam its starting to sound like we just need to get rid of all private press
Was the US dropping a nuke on Hiroshima a war crime? Or Firebombing entire cities? Unfortunately, "war crimes", while they have a clear international definition, tend to only apply to whoever loses wars. That's why the US passed a law requiring military intervention if the ICC tried to arrest an American general.
Here's Robert McNamara, US Defense Secretary during the Vietnam war, answering that question: "LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He... and I'd say I... were behaving as war criminals"
Should we ban his books? Sanction people for interviewing him? If we did, we wouldn't have had that gem of a quote. That entire documentary, mostly composed of interviews of McNamara, is a powerful testament to the dangers of war for humanity. We don't want a situation where journalists are scared to interview people because of what the government might do to them in response.
There’s not an argument about the danger of platforming here, because his power doesn’t come from a media position. He’s the head of a State. His power is self sustaining, and is going to exist regardless if he’s interviewed or not.
I’m sure Tucker is going to do a shitty, glazing interview, but that’s pretty regular for him.
Where, exactly, should the line be draw then between "reporting" and "being a mouthpiece". Because if you can't codify a set of very clear standards that can exist in law, the government will use every last bit of ambiguity to repress dissent, especially when the government is not being headed by somebody on your "side". In the US, there are some very clear, very specific carve-outs for the 1st amendment.
George Bush is considered by many to be a war criminal, he invaded two countries with no legal pretext. Should his writings or paintings be banned speech? Should the government be able to censor him? How about Pinochet? or Stalin? How can we learn about history if we cannot see and understand why one side acted the way they did? What their motivations were? We don't censor those things, and we shouldn't. The USSR however did widely censor the writings of western authors, using much the same arguments you make here.
The easier solution is to not grant the government that kind of censorship power, acknowledge that words are just words and we being free people can discern fact from fiction and come to our own conclusions, and push for platforms to not give airtime to hacks like Tucker. If you do not believe people can hear two arguments and discern which is better, you may as well give up on democracy entirely. The whole concept of democracy is premised on believing that people can do that. If they can't, we may as well hand over all our liberties to the nearest wannabe dictator and be done with the inefficiencies of voting.
George Bush is considered by many to be a war criminal
Yes, but to equate it to the below is a false equivalence.
"First of all, it should be remembered that Putin is not just a president of an aggressor country, but he is wanted by the International Criminal Court and accused of genocide and war crimes," MEP Urmas Paet, who previously served as Estonia's foreign minister, told Newsweek.
we being free people can discern fact from fiction
Hmmm. I'm not sure recent history bears that out, at least with regard to US politics.
Where, exactly, should the line be draw then between “reporting” and “being a mouthpiece”.
Not sure. But that doesn't mean there isn't one, nor that it can't be apparent when it's been crossed.
The EU has good reason to fear anything that emboldens Putin or works in even the slightest to increase his chances of prevailing in Ukraine. It's quite clear that a victorious Russia is an existential threat to its neighbors. With all this discernment of fact that's going on, it seems like that should be fairly easy to understand.
push for platforms to not give airtime to hacks like Tucker.
How is this not exactly that?
The easier solution is to not grant the government that kind of censorship power,
To my knowledge he's not being prevented from sharing his beliefs, nor has the interview been banned, nor has he been imprisoned for any of this. Where's the censorship?
To my knowledge he’s not being prevented from sharing his beliefs, nor has the interview been banned, nor has he been imprisoned for any of this. Where’s the censorship?
The title of the article: Tucker Carlson Could Face Sanctions Over Putin Interview. They're not talking about Facebook refusing to host the video. They're talking about the EU government doing something about the fact that he interviewed Putin.
I read that. And I read the rest of the article, where they were very vague about what those might be aside from travel restrictions, said it could be a long time before anything happens if at all, and that the folks trying to do this don't have the power to do it alone.
Consider that optics matter just as much as the actual content of the sanctions. Even if it's basically a nothingburger of travel restrictions, he will play this up to his audience as being persecuted by The Establishment for speaking truth to power.
In other words, they're giving him what he wants. Or do you think he interviewed Putin just for fun? Or because he really likes him?
The so-called "state of Israel" is blatantly violating an ICJ order to cease their ongoing genocide in Palestine. Should it be illegal to interview Benyamin Netanyahu?
I think it’s so funny people are having long debates in this comment section and it’s essentially just saying a wealthy guy may or may not be able to fly to the EU because he did something.
Literally nothing has happened and I gotta read 87 paragraphs about whether I should be a free speech absolutist or not,
I like that people are having the discussion, I also like that I skipped it.
Eagerly awaiting the EU to sanction all US aligned propagandists as well...
Oh wait that will never happen
Tucker should be sanctioned for being a bowtie wearing shit eating reactionary named "Tucker" first and foremost.
Okay I don’t really like this bootleg Cold War thing we’ve got going on but any outcome where Tucker Carlson gets harmed is one I can accept
I doubt anything will come of this, it's just an interview, probably just some big talk from people in EU parliament, I guess Russia did the exact same thing when they sanctioned Sean Penn and Ben Stiller, but I would be surprised if the EU stoops to that level, it's frankly petty to target private citizens doing media stuff regardless of what it is or how much you disagree with it.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/3629942-russia-sanctions-25-more-americans-including-us-officials-and-actors/
but I would be surprised if the EU stoops to that level, it's frankly petty to target private citizens doing media stuff regardless of what it is or how much you disagree with it.
"Am I a joke to you?"
- Jullian Assange
