Carlson literally disputed the results of an election, and that despite heaps of evidence that there never has been fraud.
At that point, he and his gullible viewers become a threat to democracy itself - and that is not an exaggeration given the events of Jan 6th.
It used to be the case that such events got classified and prosecuted as high treason.
> It used to be the case that such events got classified and prosecuted as high treason.
I wasn't aware that stating an opinion on a government election was illegal in the United States. Isn't that literally what the First Amendment is for?
“Biden conspired with Dominion to tamper with votes” is a statement which can be assessed factually, and which has significant impact. Carlson and others knowingly lied like that – hence the first massive lawsuit settlement – and the J6 insurgents show every sign of having believed those lies and being motivated by them to assault the legitimate government trying to prevent a fair election result.
The First Amendment is not absolute and has long-standing exceptions. One of those are false statements about specific people, which Carlson clearly made knowing they were false before he made them, and another is incitement to violence. The bar for that is high but it seems likely that at least some of these calls are debatably close to that level.
It’s also worth remembering that the first amendment isn’t relevant to what a Canadian regulator allows to be broadcast in Canada.
My criticism of the parent poster was with the phrase "high treason" which implies a crime against the government (who would be bound by the First Amendment if this was taking place in America).
that was a pretty popular thing to do, circa 2000
> that is not an exaggeration
not something normally included in non-exaggerations.
There was no outrage then. It’s just become acceptable to despise and ostracize the Right.
There's plenty of evidence of some fraud occuring, it was just never discussed by the regime-aligned media and tech companies, which is the vast majority of them. The same way they conspired to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop story, and claimed in unison that the covid vaccines could prevent transmission and infection when there was no evidence to support this.
>At that point, he and his gullible viewers become a threat to democracy itself
If all your sources of truth are partisan media outlets aligned with you regime, then if the fraud really was large enough to alter the election results, you'd never know. That's the real threat to democracy.
HN does not need people repeating long-debunked lies, especially when you’re not even willing to put your personal credibility on the line by stating what specifically you assert to be true and why.