On December 12, 2025, American commentator Tucker Carlson delivered a series of explicit, uninterrupted statements during a live interview with Matt Walsh that collectively amount to an open endorsement of coercive action against Canada. In the span of roughly three minutes, Carlson engaged in an unprecedented narrative assault on Canadian sovereignty and legitimacy, asserting that:
-
Canada is “not even a country” – overtly delegitimizing Canada’s status as a sovereign nation.
-
The Canadian government is murdering “tens of thousands” of citizens each year – accusing Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program of essentially mass state murder, including of children, and “harvesting the organs” from those killed.
-
The U.S. should consider invading and occupying Canada on human rights grounds – explicitly framing a hypothetical military intervention as morally justified, and repeatedly insisting “I’m not joking even a tiny bit” to underline the seriousness of his advocacy.
-
Canada is “way worse than Maduro” and even “worse than China” – claiming Canada’s alleged crimes outstrip those of Venezuela’s Maduro regime and the Chinese government, thus positioning Canada among the world’s most egregious human rights violators.
Ok but banning speech goes both ways, hey!? That means the speech you find acceptable might come into question by others.
It’s a slippery slope. Maybe the slipperiest. Freedom of speech also means sometimes you need to hear some stuff that makes you want to vomit.
As soon as some speech is chosen over another, it’s not free. As long as a platform decides what is acceptable, it’s not free. YT and Twitter actively vet who is allowed to speak on their platforms, which means it’s not free. It also means they are somewhat condoning the speech on their platforms.
It’s already not free.