Short Summary

  1. Tucker Carlson interviews Russian President Vladimir Putin, emphasizing journalists’ duty to inform about the Ukraine war and its global impact.
  2. Some praise Carlson for the interview, advocating that everyone has the right to be heard.
  3. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour counters Carlson’s claims, stating journalists have long attempted to interview Putin.
  4. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denies Carlson’s claim of exclusive access to Putin.
  5. Carlson alleges the Biden Administration hacked his and his company’s phones to leak messages and derail the interview.
  6. The video concludes with discussions on the importance of tough questioning in interviews and potential EU sanctions against Carlson.
  7. The speaker discusses COVID, Israel-Palestine, and journalism, highlighting issues like restricted interviews with Putin and pressure on TV shows in Ukraine.
  8. They mention the suppression of pro-Palestinian speech in Europe, particularly Germany, and its impact on journalists.
  9. The concept of access journalism is explored, where journalists may conduct lighter interviews to secure more substantial ones later.
  10. The speaker reflects on their own interview with Dr. Fauci, the trade-offs involved, and invites viewer engagement for upcoming content.
  • suction@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    Breathe, dude. Where does it say “censor”? Nowhere.

    And free speech isn’t freedom of consequences.

    • Limonene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      Freedom of Speech does mean freedom from consequences, at least from any government that recognizes that freedom of speech. The phrase, “Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences” refers to the ability of private entities to take negative actions against speakers engaging in free speech, simply because those negative actions were within the private entities’ rights all along. For example, the ability of any Lemmy instance to ban anyone they want.

      Regardless, speech that is actively harmful, is false, or meets certain other circumstances (depending on which government you’re looking at) may not be recognized as covered free speech. Tucker Carlson is probably about to do a bunch of speech that is not covered by freedom of speech, which is why the expected sanctions will be justified.

    • Jo Miran
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      It also only applies to a government’s influence over its own citizens. Carlson is not a citizen of the EU.