Tucker Carlson says Trump administration is using Charlie Kirk’s killing to trample First Amendment

[ColdHardTruth]

Tucker Carlson says Trump administration is using Charlie Kirk’s killing to trample First Amendment​

Conservative podcaster and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has accused the Trump administration of using Charlie Kirk’s death to trample on the First Amendment, a concern that has been raised by many on the left.

When a far-right wing propagandist starts telling the truth ... we should all be worried.

Dumpletits and his GQP minions need to be stopped.

MSN

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Tucker Carlson has gone woke or has been bought out by George Soros.

 

[Loulit01]

IDC

 

[maxparrish]

Tucker Carlson says Trump administration is using Charlie Kirk’s killing to trample First Amendment​

Conservative podcaster and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has accused the Trump administration of using Charlie Kirk’s death to trample on the First Amendment, a concern that has been raised by many on the left.

When a far-right wing propagandist starts telling the truth ... we should all be worried.

Dumpletits and his GQP minions need to be stopped.

MSN

Of all people, Tucker's painfully late, and surely knows Martin Niemöller's (Lutheran Minister) of quoted postwar confession:

"“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

They will come for Tucker, and in his gut he knows it.

 

[The Populist Right]

I think Tucker sees a lot of cracks in the MAGA base. It's obvious from the Dominion investigation he hates Trump and IMO will do whatever he can to undermine him.

 

[Bucky]

I think Tucker sees a lot of cracks in the MAGA base. It's obvious from the Dominion investigation he hates Trump and IMO will do whatever he can to undermine him.

Tucker makes a lot of good points.

We need to be on the right side of the history.

 

[Elmo]

Tucker Carlson says Trump administration is using Charlie Kirk’s killing to trample First Amendment​

Conservative podcaster and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has accused the Trump administration of using Charlie Kirk’s death to trample on the First Amendment, a concern that has been raised by many on the left.

When a far-right wing propagandist starts telling the truth ... we should all be worried.

Dumpletits and his GQP minions need to be stopped.

MSN

I don't care what ****er Carlson says about anything, and neither should you. He doesn't deserve any help in gathering clicks.

 

[anatta]

“You hope that a year from now, the turmoil we're seeing in the aftermath of his murder won't be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country,” Carlson said Wednesday during a special edition of The Tucker Carlson Show in tribute to Kirk.

Bondi said the Justice Department “will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Carlson said that Kirk would have “objected” to Bondi’s remarks, which she was forced to later walk back.
“This is the Attorney General of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, telling you that there is this other category... called hate speech,”

 

[joluoto]

Screw him.

But also a broken clock is right twice a day, and he's right about this.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Tucker Carlson says Trump administration is using Charlie Kirk’s killing to trample First Amendment​

Conservative podcaster and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has accused the Trump administration of using Charlie Kirk’s death to trample on the First Amendment, a concern that has been raised by many on the left.

When a far-right wing propagandist starts telling the truth ... we should all be worried.

Dumpletits and his GQP minions need to be stopped.

MSN

This isn't the first time a RW mouthpiece has pointed out something unconstitutional or illegal Trump has done. MAGAs don't seem to care even if it comes from one of their own.

 

[The AntiDonald]

I think Tucker sees a lot of cracks in the MAGA base. It's obvious from the Dominion investigation he hates Trump and IMO will do whatever he can to undermine him.

Not if it will cost him money. He's just testing the water.

 

[hooligan]

Hell surely has a skating rink today - I'm agreeing with Tucker Carlson.

 

[Questerr]

Tucker makes a lot of good points.

We need to be on the right side of the history.

If you cared about being on the right side of history, you wouldn’t be a conservative.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I don't care what ****er Carlson says about anything, and neither should you. He doesn't deserve any help in gathering clicks.

You are absolutely correct; however, when somebody that far right calls out dumpletits, it's very interesting.

 

[maxparrish]

This isn't the first time a RW mouthpiece has pointed out something unconstitutional or illegal Trump has done. MAGAs don't seem to care even if it comes from one of their own.

When a MAGA worships Trump as the son of God, everyone who takes exception even in the slightest is a Judas. Being "one of their own" isn't a shared system of belief or values, its total and blind obedience to a demigod. If the Demigod wakes up one morning and declares that all must eat earthworms, any follower who questions its purpose and fails to chow down is a traitor, a heretic, and unspeakable evil that must be force fed.

Tucker must either shut up on this immediately and "clarify" his comments to please Trump or he is finished...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Tucker Carlson has gone woke or has been bought out by George Soros.

No, Carlson probably believes that. If it wasn't for how people are amplifying their hate with media, I would agree. Until jurisdictions take action against their rioters, we are in a dangerous point in history. This falls into the category you do not yell fire in a theater. There are sensible limits. You can say it, but if it is considered damaging, you can be held accountable.

 

[Phys251]

No, Carlson probably believes that. If it wasn't for how people are amplifying their hate with media, I would agree. Until jurisdictions take action against their rioters, we are in a dangerous point in history. This falls into the category you do not yell fire in a theater. There are sensible limits. You can say it, but if it is considered damaging, you can be held accountable.

Yes, we are in a dangerous point in history. And for once, Tucker Carlson is right about it.

You, on the other hand, trivialize it.

 

[bomberfox]

Theres no messiah coming to save us. We are truly a doomed country.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, we are in a dangerous point in history. And for once, Tucker Carlson is right about it.

You, on the other hand, trivialize it.

I understand both sides of the issue. That is not trivializing it. I did say were are in dangerous times.

 

[Phys251]

I understand both sides of the issue. That is not trivializing it. I did say were are in dangerous times.

You understand both the pro-free-speech side and the anti-free-speech side? Why don't you share with the class.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You understand both the pro-free-speech side and the anti-free-speech side? Why don't you share with the class.

The free speech is still there. You can say what you want. There just might be legal consequences. It has always been this way.

 

[Phys251]

Theres no messiah coming to save us. We are truly a doomed country.

We are are own messiah. It's up to us to save us.

 

[Phys251]

The free speech is still there. You can say what you want. There just might be legal consequences. It has always been this way.

If there are legal consequences then it's not free speech. Even you know this.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If there are legal consequences then it's not free speech. Even you know this.

Please show me where it says there cannot be consequences to what you say:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

It only says a law shall not be made to stop free speech.

Please, what is your reasoning?

Remember Fox settling for $760 million when they exercised their free speech?

 

[Phys251]

Please show me where it says there cannot be consequences to what you say:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

It only says a law shall not be made to stop free speech.

Please, what is your reasoning?

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that free speech is a limitation on all of the government, not just Congress. As a self-professed libertarian, you should know this.

Remember Fox settling for $760 million when they exercised their free speech?

For someone who loves making accusations about slander, you sure do love to excuse it in cases where it actually occurred.