Don't understand progressives defending @TuckerCarlson against advertiser pull-out. I agree advertisers should't influence content (even though they do across media) but Carlson's hate speech should't be confused w/ free speech. If he wants to push bigotry, there are consequences
-
-
Replying to @JordanChariton @TuckerCarlson
You prove "hate speech" is a vague term that can be used to mean any objectionable speech. Very slippery slope. Free speech includes hate speech
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ThinkChimpThink @TuckerCarlson
Calling immigrants dirty falls under free speech. It's also hateful and bigoted. If advertisers don't want their product or brand attached with that, that's their right. If
@FoxNews wants their brand attached with that, it's their right to keep him on the air.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
So you "agreeing advertisers shouldn't influence content" was obviously a lie, yeah?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I don't think advertisers should influence stories journalists cover/decide not to cover or people they challenge/decide not to challenge (they very much do now). But if people like Tucker Carlson want to spew bigoted sound bites for a living, they're not entitled 2 advertisers
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Dude.. You think advertisers and corporations should control public discourse, just own it. Stop trying to act like you don't. You just blatantly said two contradictory things and said you agree with both
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
How are advertisers "controlling" him? He's still on the air saying what he wants to say. No one is talking about anchors passing their scripts through advertisers. But you seem to think people should be allowed to say absolutely anything and face no consequences if what they say
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JordanChariton @ThinkChimpThink and
is hateful, offensive, or dangerous. I don't believe that. Having a microphone or TV show or online show—and an audience (big or small)—is a privilege. I have a paid monthly membership model for
@StatusCoup (not an advertising one). If I started spewing hatred or things that my1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JordanChariton @ThinkChimpThink and
paying audience finds disdainful and horrid, they have a right to pull their financial support. That's how it works. And if I truly believed in what I was saying and didn't find it immoral, I'd continue saying it. Bottomline--you can have unlimited free speech but that doesn't
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
mean people with platforms can spew whatever hateful, bigoted, or false thing they want and have a guarantee of financial support no matter what. It's not that complicated
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.