nedboy7

Tucker is now woke. Tucker Carlson on Wednesday used the opening monologue of his show to stridently push back against the Trump administration’s onslaught against free speech ― even going so far as to call out Attorney General Pam Bondi for using Charlie Kirk’s death as its pretext. “Charlie was a free speech champion,” Carlson noted. “Absolutely he was. And I pray that that’s his legacy.”

Can’t wait to hear why we can’t have midterms or why we can’t trust any place a Dem wins. Bye bye America.

What about inciting violence? The First Amendment does not protect incitement, but the Supreme Court has defined that term quite narrowly, requiring a likelihood of imminent violence. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to and be likely to produce violence or lawlessness right away. In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group under an Ohio statute that banned the advocacy of terrorism. The Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, had urged his followers at a rally to “send the Jews back to Israel” and to “bury” Black people, using a racial slur. He also said they should consider “revengeance” against politicians and judges who were unsympathetic to white people. Only Klan members and journalists were present. Because Mr. Brandenburg’s words fell short of calling for immediate violence in a setting where such violence was likely, the Supreme Court ruled that he could not be prosecuted for incitement. Mr. Trump has been the beneficiary of that ruling. When he was running for president in 2016, he pointed to some protesters at one of his rallies and told the crowd to “get ’em out of here.” The protesters, who said they were then viciously assaulted, sued him for inciting a riot. Mr. Trump won the suit. A federal appeals court, referring to Brandenburg, ruled that his exhortation was protected by the First Amendment. “In the ears of some supporters, Trump’s words may have had a tendency to elicit a physical response, in the event a disruptive protester refused to leave,” Judge David W. McKeague wrote for the majority, “but they did not specifically advocate such a response.”

Can courts prohibit offensive speech that causes listeners distress? Here again, the Supreme Court has said “no.” Courts would not stop a planned march by the American Nazi Party in Skokie, Ill., in 1977, though it would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors who lived there. In 2011, by an 8-to-1 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the Westboro Baptist Church, which protested at military funerals with signs bearing messages like “America is Doomed” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” “Speech is powerful,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.” But under the First Amendment, he went on, “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, required protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

"Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free." Benny Johnson must have a different Kirk on his mind.

That’s ***** funny. I guess the algorithms protect you all from anything you can’t handle. I’m not a liberal. Just not in the cult. The algorithm is not sure what to send me. 🤣

Read the thread. You use the same bull#### circular junk. “Can you explain what you been taking about?” Nah. That’s cute.

I watched many interviews where Charlie looked like an idiot. your idea that America is maga vs the rest is that’s sickening

good monkey.

You have nothing argument. Just a bunch of circular gibberish. Their corporate values better align with the presidents ha? 😜

Like democratic law makers? One person can’t be an example of fascism idiot. It’s a government ideology.

You think they would have fired him if Trump wasn’t screaming about shutting companies down for going against his version of the truth. Fox lied about the election for how many years? 🤣

These comments show why most people think maga is bordering on fascism. If it’s against the cult then it’s ok. Like owning the libs to protect sex trafficking.

Thats offensive? It’s quite possible this is all BS and he was a groyper. Why react this way if it’s so far fetched. No. It’s because the pedo in charge got triggered.