756
Tucker Carlson says Trump admin using Charlie Kirk’s killing to trample free speech
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2025
756 points (99.5% liked)
politics
25819 readers
2730 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Similar thing for me recently. Learned musk is against collective shouts censorship. Made me really evaluate why I was against it. Still against it. Censorship limits freedom of speech but so does deplatforming the censors. Weird times
Sure, but sometimes the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy. I agree with this one thing that Tucker said. I vehemently disagree with pretty much every single other thing he says, or has said.
Yeah same in my situation basically. Also he wants to harass and censor collective shout. It's not the right way to address this. ACLU already looking into financial censorship and payment procssors. That's the way I want it handled. Legally and sanely
The grammar is ambiguous, FYI, of if you meant the censorship done by collective shout or the censorship being done to collective shout.
It doesn't impact my reply, but I figured I'd let you know. :)
I'm against government censorship in all circumstances outside the cliche "you can't threaten people or spread injurious falsehoods".
I'm okay with private entities not giving people a platform if they aren't a defacto institution. Credit card companies and financial services should be agnostic to which legal businesses they process payments and hold assets for. Much like how shipping companies are agnostic to what's in your package, beyond what's necessary to move it safely.
If you're needed for society to function, I want you to blindly service society, even if people I dislike also get service.
I don't want to be in a place where every platform needs to accept all participants as valid. There's plenty of ways to share your viewpoint.
That ignores the fact that the government leans on these people behind the scenes. So it is a thinly veiled end run around government censorship, as we have seen with social media, Homeland Security giving lists of names for them to ban for other reasons.
I wouldn't say it's ignoring it. I'm incredulous that DHS would pressure Facebook to cancel an account or something for the same reason I'm not as bothered by it happening: it doesn't have real consequences.
If the government censors you, it can take your money or your freedom. Not only does it have much higher stakes, it has stakes you can't get around. You can't go to a platform that doesn't mind and keep going.
If the government leans on a company, first of all that's still government censorship and it's not legal for the government to get a company to do what it cannot. If the specifics of the behavior are legal, it's still government censorship and wrong (with aforementioned caveats).
That being said, the consequence of that type of censorship is loss of a social media account. You can find another venue and all they can do is keep asking people to remove the content. If someone refuses or you host overseas, there's not really anything they can do.
There's a benefit to society, in my opinion, for people to reject an idea. Refusing to help someone spread a message is about the most passive way to do that.
I've worked in the webhosting industry. If someone has a Nazi website and they need tech support, you need to ask yourself if you're willing to take that support request or if you're letting your manager know you're not gonna help that message.
If the employees at a company don't want to help you and it's not unjust discrimination, I have a really hard time saying that it's wrong to tell Nazis to take their website elsewhere.
I agree 100% Sorry I was ambiguous in my last reply. I am against all censorship both by and against collective shout
I don't think censoring collective shout helps any of this
I'm not aware of the specifics of that group to know how I feel.
My feelings are more born from looking at webhosting and hate/harassment websites. I have a really hard time saying it's wrong to take down a Nazi website.
I don't think the government should be able to, because as abhorrent as it is it's still a political position and protected. But if the people you're paying to host your shit don't want anything to do with you and it's not unjust discrimination, I don't think society gains anything by forcing them to keep it up.
I also don't think that applies to monopolies, quasi or defacto.
I think there's a benefit to telling hateful groups and people they aren't welcome in civil society. The alternative is to say that there's no line at which society can tell you to gtfo, and people just need to tolerate you no matter what.
Shunning or deplatforming is how you do that without violence.