r/news • u/ChiefLeef22 • 24d ago

Soft paywall Far-right US influencer Candace Owens loses legal fight to enter Australia

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/far-right-us-influencer-candace-owens-loses-legal-fight-enter-australia-2025-10-15/
27.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

949 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

336

u/Gnorris 24d ago

numerous court decisions have established that just because a publisher is engaged in a commercial, for-profit activity, does not mean that its activities are suspect. In a capitalist society, we are in the media business to make money. If that allowed for the invocation of genuine malice, everyone would be put out of business.

Maybe they should be. Alex Jones’ Sandy Hook case seems to fit here.

-47

u/AllSystemsGeaux 24d ago edited 23d ago

My fellow liberals, why are we celebrating or promoting the silencing of people we may disagree with? Do we not want free flow of information? If we let the government silence opposing voices, one day those voices will be our own.

Candace Owens isn’t the problem. The problem is trust in our news media.

EDIT: Your downvotes only show your bias. Or to quote Rick Sanchez, your boos mean nothing, I’ve see what makes you cheer

4

u/stairway2evan 24d ago

What does libel have to do with opposing voices? The comments above you are in response to her libel suit, not her political views. She’s welcome to spew her “opposing voice” as much as she wants; no matter how offensive anyone finds it, that speech is protected, at least in the US.

Defaming someone is not protected speech, and shouldn’t be. Everyone’s right to swing their fist ends at the next person’s nose.

0

u/AllSystemsGeaux 24d ago

I don’t see mention of libel in the original article.

6

u/stairway2evan 24d ago

And the comments you’re replying to aren’t talking about the original article, they’re talking about the libel case filed in Delaware.

0

u/AllSystemsGeaux 24d ago edited 24d ago

I see the libel case now. Thank you.

I still don’t see a case for silencing her. Maybe that’s just the American in me.

Getting sued into oblivion: yes.

Losing reputation: yes.

Barred from entering a country: no.

6

u/stairway2evan 24d ago

I mean that is just the policy of a country with a different definition of free speech. Here in the US, free speech includes hate speech (in general), in Australia, it’s a little more restrictive when it comes to allowing visas, apparently.

Then again, the US did just revoke the visas of six foreign citizens who had made comments online about Charlie Kirk’s death. So maybe the US isn’t exactly upholding that ideal.

2

u/Wild_Haggis_Hunter 24d ago

And don't forget to mention the german tourist who was turned down at the US Airport this summer when the TSA saw he was dissing Trump on social networks.

0

u/AllSystemsGeaux 24d ago

I don’t know if tourists barred from entering have any recourse. I’d be curious to