<quote from AOC Twitter post>
I genuinely want to know why Tucker Carlson is allowed/paid to engage in clear, targeted, libelous harassment that endangers people & drives so many violent threats that ppl have to fundraise for their own safety. Why should they have to pay for his harassment? Make it make sense.
</quote>
Well gee, Ms Occasio-Cortez, I am a bit surprised at the question. You absolutely know the libel laws, and why Mr Carlson's commentary is completely legal, whether or not you regard it as inflammatory; and even though you do not like his commentary and call it "libelous harassment". You are constantly engaged in fund raising for outrageous, socialist purposes that the vast US middle class majority does not condone, to the point that many folks become enraged when Mr. Carlson points out what you are doing. You are using a privileged position as a representative of a safely left wing constituency (a minority when the whole country is counted) to injure and insult people like me, rather than to represent your outre` constituency.
Maintaining a high profile which is clearly contemptuous of folks like me, positively invites extreme reactions, which might even include illegal threats (which I abhor). Such reactions may lead those who are fearful of the people over whom they govern and exercise power; to a point that use of their fundraising wealth for security purposes seems required. One might be moved to observe that dictators not duly chosen by their people are often similarly fearful of those they govern.
This is simply a "cost of doing business", when your governance practice is to advocate positions that are so extreme and ridiculous as to outrage the sensibilities of sensible people as well as non-sensible, right-wing persons who may be violent, and who certainly can be moved to threaten violence (which is inexcusable and again, which I abhor).
You, Ms Occasio-Cortez, are aware of this, so your question on Twitter is actually rhetorical. If Mr. Carlson's public remarks are indeed libelous, my advice would be to quit whining and sue his skinny white ass. If you tried to do so however, I am sure you would find that public persons who make political hay out of insulting, and offending, and promulgating policies injurious to ordinary, majority, law-abiding taxpayers (like me and those I live among) are subject to reasonable standards regarding what constitutes actionable libel. Also it seems possible to me that there may be some elements of what you find objectionable that are subject to the ancient, well-established precedent that "The truth is not libel".