Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Wow, quite the attack on me. Try to focus on the topic and not attacking other posters.

Well, I’m trying to figure it out from your vague comments.
It’s easy.
•Do you believe in individual rights, that they exist antecedent to government?
•That rights are inherent to being a human being and are from God or natural law.
•that the primary reason for the existence of government is to protest individual rights.
• that limited government limits the opportunity for tyranny.

1 Like

Start another thread for that, don’t derail this one.

Quite the predictable response.

I sit here watching Tucker Carlson right now. Nothing he has said has been untruthful, in fact, for much of what he said he either had video to back it up or a guest who is the topic of his commentary. Of course you will say he is a liar because Fox News said he was, therefore implying I am too, a liar, but you would be so wrong. 1. I’m sure you are NOT watching Tucker Carlson so you would have no idea what he is really saying. You may see what CNN says about what Tucker says, but…well…it’s CNN, can’t trust what they say. 2. You don’t know me, you don’t know my values or morals (although you should, I’ve made them clear enough many times, but since you only trust your truth, you wouldn’t really know anyone else), and you live in condition of Relativism that the Absolute Truth doesn’t matter to you, only your truth matters.

But I give up trying with you. You will just be another that is just not worth the time to respond to any longer.

1 Like

Because your points had little to do with fascism and you keep making up what I meant. Kind of like you are more interested in trying to find a gotcha.

I don’t think anyone said Tucker lies about every single thing that comes out of his mouth - just that he tends to lie quite a bit and the Fox News attorneys basically said no reasonable viewer would believe what he said so you can’t sue him for malice when he is lying.

Now, I didn’t say anything about you, your values or your morals. I just said that you should focus on the topic and stop attacking another poster because you don’t like his point of view.

They have everything to do with avoiding fascism. My list is the exact opposite of fascism.

1 Like

LOL. I am glad our current political mess can at least provide good entertainment value, even if it is a little on the dark side.

And now the conversation repeats itself.

Are you willing to agree with these basic principles?

Why are you repeating this when I have already refused to go down that rabbit hole with you?

Please don’t claim opposition to fascism when you won’t agree to the opposite of it.

Please don’t pretend that saying that your list has little to do with fascism is the same thing as not opposing fascism.

It is the opposite of fascism.

Yep, keep repeating that and then making false claims against those that don’t buy into your views.

It is the truth. Of course I will keep repeating it.

Ah huh. Go up the thread where I initially responded to your list and follow that again. I said that I agree with some, disagree with some, but I didn’t see how it had much to do with fascism since many countries do not have a lot on your list and aren’t fascist.

Again, fascism is the opposite of individual rights and limited government.
Can you name a fascist state where individual rights were protected and limited government existed?

1 Like

And what that federal court was ruling on - in reality - was the basis of the suit being brought against Mr. Carlson … the plaintiff did not establish their case strong enough to even get to trial … you can make this ruling about Tucker Carlson - but the reality is it is about whether what he said amounted to the harm the plaintiff alleged …

People often observe and or react about an event and draw conclusions which they express … sometimes that spoken expression amounts to a defamation of another or other harm … sometimes it does not - and context comes into that decision. People bring lawsuits, some get to court - where a decision is handed down . .some don’t … the person holding the burden to prove the harm is the plaintiff … not the defendant … in this case - the plaintiff failed

1 Like

Do you realize there are states with many of those restrictions that aren’t fascist?

Do you realize that fascist states have none of those attributes?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit