In case you missed it, Tucker Carlson recently teased “Patriot Purge,” his upcoming Fox Nation documentary series about January 6.
Here’s the trailer:
November 1 pic.twitter.com/5yCRlkZlzM
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) October 28, 2021
To call it controversial would be an understatement. Carlson is facing criticism from across the political spectrum.
But for some people, it’s not enough to voice their concerns about “Patriot Purge.” For some people, the only acceptable response is censorship.
That’s effectively what Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Resistance hero, is looking for:
He is an anarchist; an arsonist of American democracy. How is this different than yelling fire in a crowded theater? Carlson is attempting to incite a riotous mob. He should be censured. I’d like to hear the arguments for/against this being protected speech. https://t.co/xHTaxXo2p2
— Alexander S. Vindman (@AVindman) October 28, 2021
Narrator: Alexander Vindman does not want to hear the arguments for it being protected speech.
This brave/noble/whistleblowing/patriot who cares so deeply for democratic values and American norms becomes the latest in a rapidly growing line of liberals to explicitly urge that Tucker Carlson's program on 1/6, which hasn't aired yet, be "censured" [sic: he means "censored"]: https://t.co/ytNmF0Tnog
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 29, 2021
"Censured" works perfectly in his statement, and makes it no less ridiculous. Why the invention of an entirely different sentence?
— Scareless CRISPR (@xieish) October 29, 2021
Recommended
The entire point is about the "fire in a crowded movie theater" example, used by ignorant censorship advocates to urge *censorship*. In the ensuing discussion, he makes clear that he believes the First Amendment allows censorship. That's his point. He just used the wrong word.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 29, 2021
Vindman makes it quite clear that he doesn’t want “Patriot Purge” to see the light of day.
Vindman self describes himself as ‘defender of the constitution’ lmao
— .🗯 (@vocdetox) October 29, 2021
How can he defend something he doesn’t even understand?
It's not intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action, so it's protected speech
— Ari Cohn (@AriCohn) October 28, 2021
There is no serious argument that it’s unprotected.
— TryingToHelpHat (@Popehat) October 28, 2021
When even TDS-afflicted @Popehat is telling you to slow your roll, it’s time to slow your roll.
Slow your roll, Alexander Vindman.
I'm not a Tucker Carlson fan. He's often over the top, wrong, abrasive, and inciteful.
But, if you've never called out Reid, Hayes, Lemon, and 75% of the other CNN / MSNBC flame throwers, then you're just a partisan tool https://t.co/t60c9xQHm9
— Fusilli Spock (@awstar11) October 29, 2021
So he’s a partisan tool, then.
This guy transitioned to progressive carnival act seamlessly. https://t.co/VrRMYgQyxD
— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) October 29, 2021
He made it look so easy!
There is no argument. It's protected speech. You're welcome. https://t.co/VxLt3YkQKQ
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) October 29, 2021
Tired of the "defenders of the constitution" and American democracy being entirely unfamiliar with 1st Amendment protected speech. https://t.co/8zKQEvcFTx
— Michael Brendan Dougherty (@michaelbd) October 29, 2021
The sacrifice we make to live in a free society is that sometimes bad people get to say bad things and there's nothing we can do about it until those things lead to actual crimes, or until laws get made against people saying bad things, which is tough because who defines "bad"?
— Bam.Bam (@MolanderBeth) October 29, 2021
Colonel, you have done yourself a great disservice, discrediting yourself to any objective observer. This is plainly 1A protected speech. There is no incitement of imminent lawless action. This rhetoric is dangerous, but that is no excuse to suggest tyranny is the answer.
— Michael Clark (@muphrid_) October 28, 2021
Join the conversation as a VIP Member