Cruz is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has oversight jurisdiction over the FCC.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz says FCC Chairman Brendan Carr sounded like an organized crime boss threatening the ABC network’s broadcasting licenses over comments by late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.
The Texas Republican also emphasized how much he hates what Kimmel said about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk — and how much he likes and works closely with Carr.
Having high-ranking federal officials threaten a network in such a way, however, is “dangerous as hell” because it presents a slippery slope that could end with conservatives facing government censorship down the road, Cruz said.
Silencing speech in “the Land of the Free” isn’t really the problem to him. The problem is that the sword swings both ways.
Turd continues to be turd.
More of the same.
The shoe was on the other foot and the FCC never did this before.
Time to stop being the adults. Use their tactics against them, and once they’ve FINALLY learned their lesson we can negotiate normalcy with impenetrable safeguards.
There is no such thing as impenetrable safeguards. We have safeguards now but half of the government refuses to enforce the rules. We could do better but there’s no getting around that level of coordinated treason. The only thing that has ever worked consistently is the fear of retribution from the people. We need to make them afraid of what will happen to them if they fuck us over. I’ll leave the specifics of that suggestion to your imagination but suffice it say that they aren’t afraid of us voting them out of office.
Oh sure there are; you’re just not creative enough. Laws can be written to where they can’t be overturned by less than the number of folks that voted to implement it in the first place. Consequences can be written for violating laws and rules (you’d be surprised how many things Trump has done that are illegal but don’t really have any consequences other than “don’t do that”). Enforcement powers can be granted to others who wouldn’t fall into this corruption orbit. Standing can be granted to bring charges and cases to parties that can’t currently do that. Hell, we could add a mechanism for plain ole citizens to recall POTUS and our Congressfolk/Senators.
The ultimate goals would be to take away the ability for a select few to protect others in power do these egregious violations.
All of that stuff already exists in one form or another. Democrats just softballed their turn with power and Republicans are refusing to acknowledge their role in checking the authority of the executive branch. There is no system of government that can survive when those charged with enforcing the rules abdicate their responsibility.
Show me how citizens can directly initiate a recall of the President, or their Rep or Senator for that matter.
There are existing systems in our government, and almost every form of government I am familiar with, for every concept you listed. They may not function in exactly the same way you are suggesting they could, but those suggestions are not immune to subversion or misuse either. The overall point you are making is that we could structure our government in such a way that corruption is impossible. I do not believe that is true. I believe it is a universal truth that people are susceptible to corruption and it is a universal truth that people are involved in government. Therefore, all governments are susceptible to corruption.
You are welcome to disagree with me on this if you like but if you do there is no point in continuing this discussion because I am completely confident that there is nothing you could say to change my mind about either of the premises of the argument that I laid out. That is not usually a statement I am willing to make but in this case I think it is perfectly reasonable to take such a position. You cannot legislate away human nature. You can only attempt to contain it. However, that containment will only function to the degree to which society, and it’s elected representatives, are willing to enforce such containment mechanisms.
Criticizing someone else’s censorship in order to defend your own right to free speech is as valid a reason as any. In fact, I’d say it’s the very point.
You’re right, but only if he were being honest. Democrats wouldn’t do the same. We all know that. He’s just saying this because he knows it’s wrong but can’t be honest and say that it’s Republicans who are doing this and are the issue. He’s pretending like both sides are equal, and he is fully aware they aren’t. He’s in too deep to actually call Republicans (specifically Trump and MAGAts) out.
Sure, he might be doing it for the wrong reasons, but at least he’s doing the “right” thing. Isn’t that the best one could expect of him?
Fair point! I’d’ve liked something about the whole “market place of ideas” illusion that the ruling class says exists, but I guess your perspective gets right to the quick of things.
Credit where credit is due, he at least understands that consequences exist as an abstract concept. That’s pretty rare nowadays from that side of the aisle.
Yes, but a slightly more self-aware turd than I gave him credit for before.
We have no idea how he thinks. He just finds this the most effective argument.