this is just relective of the general viewpoint that many on the far left take, there is one correct view all others who don't seek this or actively impede it shall be killed or imprisoned or bullied out of view.
you're advocating old school soviet/chinese/cuban purges
I'd personally say more like a temporary Jacobin-level revolutionary terror of former oppressors. The Communist purges are different as they were on comrades under the guise of "protecting the revolution" but was just for the dictators benefit. More communists died under Stalin than fascists, nothing he did was for ''the revolution'' or public interest.
But yes there are correct, factual, moral things that shouldn't be questioned anymore. Rape is not up for debate, racism is not up for debate, sexism is not up for debate, so on and so on. There are no 'competing arguments' in favor. Anyone who wants to debate the positives of these should be ostracized in every way shape or form. If someone can't be educated or reasoned with within a certain time frame it's reasonable for them to be coerced/compelled if the end is a moral truth.
Actually I would say coercion is only reasonable if this person is in a position of power, because their opinions can negatively affect others without power. I think you're forgetting how many millions of people are living in destitute poverty or without access to healthcare due to the actions of a few governors defending private interests. It is 100% reasonable and logical to me to dispose of them for the public's benefit. Obviously this won't happen I'm just saying if there was a revolutionary atmosphere where this occurred it wouldn't be a bad thing.
The government has done this on slavery, civil rights, gay rights, labor laws, public education etc. Literally the only thing stopping businesses from employing child workers was violence, as no capitalist can be moral and competitive at the same time unless universal regulations are in place. All progressive moral forces in this country's history has required the threat of violence or actual violence. First it is forced by people from below, the state tries to repress them, then it's too much to contain and the state has to placate them by using their monopoly on violence to make things stable.
The libertarians are right in their own way to say this government 'interference' is tyranny on their businesses/personal "freedom", except I think it's a good thing because it's tyranny that benefits the majority of people who aren't these individual exploiters/backwards racist confederate types. I just think this should be extended to economic rights as well and go after all wealthy hoarders, tax evaders, speculators, etc.
slander and libel laws work. Hannity and others feel a certain way about certain people and should be free to express this. Why are you limiting him from speaking on a private channel? Where do people come off telling people legally they can't have a TV show if people desire it? Its really dangerous you ideas.
I just don't think the channel should be allowed to be a news one. I feel like there should be some semblance of public interest involved in journalism where you must take it seriously enough not to be someone like Hannity.
That doesn't mean I'm anti-opinion in journalism because all of it is opinion unless you're just reporting facts of an event. Maybe the best pragmatic response would be to mandate a large ''OPINION SHOW'' bar/bulletin on the bottom of all programs that are just people spewing lies/conjecture.
These shows spend 30 seconds explaining an event that happened so they can be considered news and then the next 5 minutes explaining why Obama wants to enact sharia law and nobody bats an eyelid at the fact that they're not connected at all, but stupid viewers will take it as gospel.
I do agree with the guy who said maybe the viewers will believe what they want to believe and they look to fox news to validate their own stuff but I don't think that's reason not to try to push in the other direction to sanity.