Tucker Carlson in Buenos Aires

[lunar]

Because freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to speak on every media platform going and do whatever you please.

When a contrary perspective on a significant and potentially controversial issue is completely absent from media coverage — as was evident during the war in Iraq, for example — it raises suspicions that the government is systematically suppressing dissenting opinions.

Since the USA is a country where freedom of speech is a foundational principle, people are not silenced in straightforward ways.
It can occur, for instance, through manipulating third parties who end up doing the actual job.

When around half of the population supports Trump, and he subsequently finds himself banned from all major news outlets and social media platforms, it raises serious questions of fair play.

It's one thing to not provide a platform for expressing opinions; it's another to take away any significant platform where opinions can be expressed.

Stalin's constitution formally granted many freedoms to the Soviet people, but the system was set up in a way that they couldn't actually use them.

So, if it ever gets to the point where you can exercise your freedom of speech only when talking to yourself as you wash dishes at a McDonald's in Omaha, Nebraska, I would say that you don't truly have freedom of speech. And any step in this direction is actually a freedom of speech issue.

 

[Reversegate]

A private golf club is private so when you join you agree to the club's rules.

So when you join a social emdia network and you don't abide by their rules...

 

[Reversegate]

When a contrary perspective on a significant and potentially controversial issue is completely absent from media coverage — as was evident during the war in Iraq, for example — it raises suspicions that the government is systematically suppressing dissenting opinions.

With your example of Iraq, Im guessing you are referring to media coverage within the US. I can say with 100% certainty that my country, the United Kingdom, did not lack for diverse perspectives on Iraq. Indeed, the state broadcaster famously took on the government of the time.

When around half of the population supports Trump, and he subsequently finds himself banned from all major news outlets and social media platforms, it raises serious questions of fair play.

It raises rules of about fair play only when the man in question didn't like the rules of those platforms.

It's one thing to not provide a platform for expressing opinions; it's another to take away any significant platform where opinions can be expressed.

---

So, if it ever gets to the point where you can exercise your freedom of speech only when talking to yourself as you wash dishes at a McDonald's in Omaha, Nebraska, I would say that you don't truly have freedom of speech. And any step in this direction is actually a freedom of speech issue.

1. ...and the platform was not taken in dubious circumstances. His own actions brought it about. Words have consequences, as his wife demonstrated in a successful libel case in my country.

Melania Trump accepts Daily Mail damages and apology in libel case

US first lady to be paid damages and legal costs under $3m having sued UK paper’s owner over claims she ‘provided services beyond simply modelling’

www.theguardian.com

Now we could go for a full defamation versus freedom of speech debate but nobody has that sort of time on their hands... do they?

2. Actually if you wash dishes in a McDonalds then almost certainly you'll have something in your contract that restricts your freedom of speech when it comes to talking about elements of your employer on social media.


'tis interesting reading all these comments. Thanks everyone

 

[Reversegate]

The point I was trying to make was that private companies can and do restrict freedom of speech all the time.

Which is my point as well. The man in question has restricted freedom of speech when it comes to employees in his companies. You might also recall the NDA related to employees on the 2016 campaign.

Court voids Trump campaign's non-disclosure agreement

A pact signed by former Hispanic outreach director Jessica Denson is too broad and vague to enforce, a judge says.

www.politico.com

So if freedom of speech is something Mr Trump demands when it comes to social media, why is he so keen for it to happen in other facets of his life?

 

[sergio]

So when you join a social emdia network and you don't abide by their rules...

Social media is not a club. It is a source of public information.

 

[Reversegate]

Social media is not a club. It is a source of public information.

... which was restricted earlier in the year to unregistered users. Full access comes when you register, join, sign up (insert your choice of phrase here).

Twitter has started blocking unregistered users

Elon Musk blamed “data pillage” and claims the move is temporary.

www.theverge.com

Sergio, a question: do you consider Truth Social to be a source of public information?

 

[Alby]

With your example of Iraq, Im guessing you are referring to media coverage within the US. I can say with 100% certainty that my country, the United Kingdom, did not lack for diverse perspectives on Iraq. Indeed, the state broadcaster famously took on the government of the time.

Is that same state broadcaster taking on the current government over the war in Ukraine, about which there are competing views about whether it should continue or instead be brought to a close?

 

[Reversegate]

Is that same state broadcaster taking on the current government over the war in Ukraine, about which there are competing views about whether it should continue or instead be brought to a close?

Same state broadcaster, not the same ethos within the higher ranks sadly when it comes to standing up to government. BBC has changed an awful lot since the 2003 Hutton Inquiry and the last 13 years.

 

[Macanudo]

'tis interesting reading all these comments. Thanks everyone

I agree. Lots of different, unexpected opinions from a wide range of diverse perspectives.

 

[Reversegate]

I agree. Lots of different, unexpected opinions from a wide range of diverse perspectives.

Exactly this way. I'm as dull a centrist as you could imagine but ignoring things from outside of your own ideological sphere is stupid. Take libertarianism. I don't agree with much of it but reading a hell of a lot of stuff in the last decade (Mises, Murray Rothbard etc) made me think.