768
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
768 points (99.5% liked)
politics
25887 readers
2652 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
For the love of god, would you guys learn what the FCC actually does and who they have jurisdiction over. People keep talking about how hypocritical they are that they don't go after Fox News, Tucker Carlson's podcast, Blaze Radio... Guys! The FCC regulates public broadcast license holders. They do not regulate cable news shows, satellite radio, Spotify, or any other premium, private media source.
Is the FCC head a partisan hack, a complete hypocrite, and weilding his authority to cudgel those who express protected speech he doesnt like? Absolutely. By all means, be critical of that. But stop whatabouting things that he literally could not regulate even if he wanted to. You are making criticism over this sound ignorant AF.
You’re right on the technical points, but you’re completely missing the larger reality, which is corporate and media consolidation. There are a lot of business interests that include some subsidiaries that are subject to the FCC’s regulation, and other subsidiaries that are not. The point is, members of this administration are exerting extortionate pressures that don’t happen in a vacuum.
No one is coming at this with anywhere near any nuance. They're just throwing around complaints that they arent doing the same thing to people on their side even when they dont have any control over them anyway.
It would be like a police cheif cracking down on black drug users in Birmingham Alabama, and then complaining that they dont do the same to the white drug users in New Jersey. Like you are right to criticize the action, but the insinuation that they are responsible for something else that is beyond their direct control is just dumb.
You’re using different words to repeat yourself without actually addressing the flaw in your argument: it misses the larger picture.
I didn't want to reply to the dense troll so I'm answering you instead.
Do you find it ironic that the commentator is using drugs at an example when we literally in the 80's and 90's where we literally had people, including those in law enforcement, advocate how morally wrong it was for harsh punishment against African Americans for crack but let off White people for cocaine, literally the same drug.
Then elaborate, what does the FCC have to do with Tucker Carlson's podcast?
Man, you really missed the point and went down the path of Poe.
How did I miss the point? I agree completely that Carr is a fuck head that is using his power to attack free speech he disagrees with and doing Trump's bidding regardless of legality and reason. We're not in dispute there so I didnt comment on it. But you and others are under a weird delusion about the FCC's power. You're far from the only one posting snide remarks about the FCC not coming after people they dont have the power to come after.
Dude, the entire administration has been threatening everyone and everything regardless of if it's in their jurisdiction or if it's constitutionally protected, if it's illegal. For fucks sake, you have Pam Bondi going off about prosecuting the clerk who refused to print up a poster glorifying Charlie Kirk and prosecuting people for hate speech for saying Charlie Kirk was a bad, bad man.
You're ill in the head if you think that my tongue and cheek comment that the FCC should be threatening Tucker with cancel culture, which he should by the way if he's not a hypocritical twat, and that we don't understand that the FCC has no power of youtube. Do you think that when I say that "Pam Bondi needs to prosecute Tucker for hate speech" that I truly think that Pam Bondi has the power and the legal right to prosecute Tucker here?
Go touch grass dude, you've been Poe'd.
All else aside, "You've ben Poe'd" as a response to someone replying to your own comment is really lame. "Dude, I made a sarcastic comment in text form and you treated it like I was serious, idiot!" isn't the burn you think it is.
Don't really care what you think. Welcome to the internet where the facts are all made up and the points don't matter. Have a good day.
They are the regulator for cable TV and therefore do regulate cable news shows. https://www.fcc.gov/media/engineering/cable-television
They have regulatory power primarily over the technical aspects of cable tv, not the content.
From the same fcc.gov website you just linked to:
Source: The FCC and Speech | Federal Communications Commission https://share.google/p4X1DUg5q3a8F1jC6
Edit: @downvoters, am I fucking wrong? Your citation is right there, right from the horse's mouth, the government website of the FCC itself. Go on and be pissy about it I guess, but you're acting like children.
The FCC does for example prohibit "obscenity" — not profanity — on cable. No doubt it is mentioned somewhere on their website.
It does. That is one of the very limit content regulatory powers it has over cable tv. "Obsenity" is a very high bar, though, and is, itself, not protected speech under the 1st Amendment at all.
To be considered obscene, it must meet a three-pronged test from the Supreme Court:
Basically Brian Kilmeade can't show his gaping asshole taking a dump on Fix & Friends. But he can casually suggest euthanizing the homeless population and it's out of the FCC's hand.
Do you honestly think something as trivial as jurisdiction is going to stop them?
Toilet paper is more respected than your Constitution. Stop expecting 'the law' to protect you from those that write and enforce the law.
Well that's a dumb take. You're suggesting that those criticizing the hypocrisy of his actions taken under the law are then saying he should break the law to go against his own partisan side to make it fair. That just makes us sound even more ignorant.
Jimmy Kimmel isn't being silenced by the FCC, he's being silenced by Sinclair.
Except he is being silenced by the FCC too since Carr, in his official capacity as FCC Chairman, made the remarks,
and
Also, FCC Chair Carr says 'we're not done yet' after Jimmy Kimmel suspension by ABC
Correct. FCC threatens broadcast license. Sinclair superceeded the show. ABC network was threatened on two fronts and capitulated to save their jobs.
The reason this is a big deal is that this isn’t some kind of court of public opinion, like being fired for saying we should exterminate homeless people with lethal injection (oh wait), this is literally the president of the United States coercing censorship of a major broadcaster. Pure 1A violation.
It’s funny because if Trump had backchanneled this and kept his mouth shut this would be much harder to prove. But he just…he just said it on live TV.
I'm aware.