Yet another progressive leader is floating the idea of using the government to crack down on news outlets they don’t like. Despite the obvious First Amendment issues, these people seem to believe they can force networks to align with their orthodoxy. What is disturbing is that there is a chance that they are right.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) recently claimed on MSNBC’s “Inside” that Fox News host Tucker Carlson and others on the network are “very clearly” inciting violence. She also criticized the recent settlement between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems for defamation, stating that the network should have been required to acknowledge on air that it lied to its viewers. As usual, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s arguments are dishonest and authoritarian.
Host Jen Psaki started by bringing up the lawsuit:
This week, Fox News settled their defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million, a lot of money. It is now the largest defamation settlement in history. Do you think Dominion’s lawyers made a mistake not requiring Fox to acknowledge on air that it lied to its viewers?
Ocasio-Cortez responded:
This was a corporation suing another corporation for material damages. Their job is to go in and get the most money that they can. I think that they did that. They are not lawyers for the American public. I think what is best for the country, what would have been best for the country, would have been to demand that and not settle until we got that, but that is not their role.
AOC continued:
We have very real issues with what is permissible on air. We saw that with January 6, and we saw that in the lead-up to January 6. How we navigate questions, not just of freedom of speech but also accountability for incitement of violence, this is the line that we have to really explore through law.
Psaki went on to ask: “Do you think that media organizations or social media platforms should be accountable for being platforms for incitement?”
Ocasio-Cortez answered in the affirmative, saying that networks “are subject to federal law” and “regulation in terms of what’s allowed on air and what isn’t.”
“When you look at what Tucker Carlson and some of these others folks on Fox do, it is very, very clearly incitement of violence, very clearly incitement of violence. That is the line that I think we have to be willing to contend with,” she concluded.
AOC wants to use the power of the state to crack down on news outlets she doesn't like.
She is not the first high-profile progressive to suggest such a thing.
If we aren't diligent about fighting back, these authoritarians will accomplish their goal. pic.twitter.com/M8V6rzeY0R
— Jeff Charles, Agent of Chaos🏴 (@jeffcharlesjr) April 24, 2023
The lawmaker’s comments come just after MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weismann made similar arguments. He said:
They’re trying to get the damages to their client. And so that’s where you really think the FEC —which did impose a small fine on the National Enquirer — needs to step in. And it can’t be a small fine. You really need to be thinking about, okay, what is the business model for the National Enquirer? What is the business model for Fox News and the next media company that’s going to pretend to be giving news but is actually going to be promulgating lies? Is there going to be some regulatory damage that’s going to deter that? So we don’t have a repetition because it’s really easy to just simply avoid denigrating a company so you won’t get sued but still promulgate a big lie. And so you need to have the government step in to have some kind of regulation of that kind of conduct.
This is problematic for several reasons. For starters, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that Fox News is “very clearly” inciting violence is subjective and lacks concrete evidence. Incitement of violence is a serious accusation that should require clear and compelling proof. But this is the claptrap that the left has been pushing ever since J6, without ever providing any evidence that Carlson’s remarks incited violence.
Secondly, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s argument that Fox News should have been required to acknowledge on air that it lied to its viewers oversimplifies the legal process and misunderstands the nature of defamation lawsuits. Settlements are often reached to avoid prolonged legal battles and mitigate potential damages. Requiring an on-air acknowledgment of lying would be an extraordinary and legally complex demand, and it is not the role of a private corporation to dictate the terms of another private corporation’s settlement.
Furthermore, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s suggestion that media organizations and social media platforms should be held accountable for incitement of violence raises concerns about freedom of speech and the role of government in regulating media. Imposing government regulations on media content could raise constitutional questions and potentially set a dangerous precedent for censorship. Moreover, folks like AOC would never apply these standards to news outlets that carry water for them – this would be nothing more than an effort to wield the power of the state to attack political opponents.
Of course, it would be difficult to pass legislation to this end. It is also doubtful that an executive order could be used for this purpose as well, as it would likely be struck down by the courts. Still, these are not idle threats. These people would relish the opportunity to leverage the government against their enemies because this is how authoritarians think. It would not be surprising to see a bigger push for this in the not-too-distant future.
