There's been a lot of confusion, discussion, but also confusion about the idea of platforming some person or de-platforming someone versus canceling them.

It came up during the Tucker Carlson interview of Nick Fuentes.

I think we should make a distinction.

These are options, so when you don't offer a venue, you're not canceling them out. You're just making a choice.

You make a choice every day who you invite on your show. If he is so extreme and you decide either

to withdraw the invitation or not to invite him at all, that's not canceling, that's not

deplatforming. How about Tucker himself, which is a very different case? Fairly or not, people

are going to think you're complicit in an effort to spread those views. I don't think necessarily

the question is to go after TuckerHanson for the Daily Signal.

There's been a lot of confusion, discussion, but also confusion about the idea of platforming

some person or deplatforming someone versus canceling them.

It came up during the Tucker Carlson interview of Nick Fuentes. I think we should make a distinction.

If you have a venue, you're a talk show host, a podcaster, you're inviting someone to lecture, that's a choice

that you make and you operate within particular sidelines, parameters. In other words,

you don't invite an abject racist, you don't invite an abject anti-Semite, you don't invite

somebody who would like to have that forum to advance your views.

And we have to be very clear about this.

People in the news that are anti-Semites, racist, anti-American radicals, whatever extremist point of view they embrace, they get to a point of

public exposure because they're quite skilled in demagogic rhetoric. They're formidable debaters.

If anybody went back to firing line and watched William F. Buckley debate George Wallace,

Buckley had the moral and the intellectual argument on his side, but he was dealing with a man who

for 25 years had spoken almost every day to crowds, and George Wallace was probably the best

...