I have to agree with your overall sentiment. However, there's at least a valid argument to be made that providing a media mouthpiece for Putin, who many consider a war criminal, has the potential to increase global unrest and lead to additional deaths in a way that few examples of protected speech do.

[–] somename@hexbear.net 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

There’s not an argument about the danger of platforming here, because his power doesn’t come from a media position. He’s the head of a State. His power is self sustaining, and is going to exist regardless if he’s interviewed or not.

I’m sure Tucker is going to do a shitty, glazing interview, but that’s pretty regular for him.

[–] makeasnek@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Where, exactly, should the line be draw then between "reporting" and "being a mouthpiece". Because if you can't codify a set of very clear standards that can exist in law, the government will use every last bit of ambiguity to repress dissent, especially when the government is not being headed by somebody on your "side". In the US, there are some very clear, very specific carve-outs for the 1st amendment.

George Bush is considered by many to be a war criminal, he invaded two countries with no legal pretext. Should his writings or paintings be banned speech? Should the government be able to censor him? How about Pinochet? or Stalin? How can we learn about history if we cannot see and understand why one side acted the way they did? What their motivations were? We don't censor those things, and we shouldn't. The USSR however did widely censor the writings of western authors, using much the same arguments you make here.

The easier solution is to not grant the government that kind of censorship power, acknowledge that words are just words and we being free people can discern fact from fiction and come to our own conclusions, and push for platforms to not give airtime to hacks like Tucker. If you do not believe people can hear two arguments and discern which is better, you may as well give up on democracy entirely. The whole concept of democracy is premised on believing that people can do that. If they can't, we may as well hand over all our liberties to the nearest wannabe dictator and be done with the inefficiencies of voting.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

George Bush is considered by many to be a war criminal

Yes, but to equate it to the below is a false equivalence.

"First of all, it should be remembered that Putin is not just a president of an aggressor country, but he is wanted by the International Criminal Court and accused of genocide and war crimes," MEP Urmas Paet, who previously served as Estonia's foreign minister, told Newsweek.

we being free people can discern fact from fiction

Hmmm. I'm not sure recent history bears that out, at least with regard to US politics.

Where, exactly, should the line be draw then between “reporting” and “being a mouthpiece”.

Not sure. But that doesn't mean there isn't one, nor that it can't be apparent when it's been crossed.

The EU has good reason to fear anything that emboldens Putin or works in even the slightest to increase his chances of prevailing in Ukraine. It's quite clear that a victorious Russia is an existential threat to its neighbors. With all this discernment of fact that's going on, it seems like that should be fairly easy to understand.

push for platforms to not give airtime to hacks like Tucker.

How is this not exactly that?

The easier solution is to not grant the government that kind of censorship power,

To my knowledge he's not being prevented from sharing his beliefs, nor has the interview been banned, nor has he been imprisoned for any of this. Where's the censorship?

[–] makeasnek@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

To my knowledge he’s not being prevented from sharing his beliefs, nor has the interview been banned, nor has he been imprisoned for any of this. Where’s the censorship?

The title of the article: Tucker Carlson Could Face Sanctions Over Putin Interview. They're not talking about Facebook refusing to host the video. They're talking about the EU government doing something about the fact that he interviewed Putin.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I read that. And I read the rest of the article, where they were very vague about what those might be aside from travel restrictions, said it could be a long time before anything happens if at all, and that the folks trying to do this don't have the power to do it alone.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Consider that optics matter just as much as the actual content of the sanctions. Even if it's basically a nothingburger of travel restrictions, he will play this up to his audience as being persecuted by The Establishment for speaking truth to power.

In other words, they're giving him what he wants. Or do you think he interviewed Putin just for fun? Or because he really likes him?

[–] SoyViking@hexbear.net 5 points 10 months ago

The so-called "state of Israel" is blatantly violating an ICJ order to cease their ongoing genocide in Palestine. Should it be illegal to interview Benyamin Netanyahu?