Have any of the free speech worrywarts weighed in on the use of nuisance lawsuits to chill legitimate satirical comment? @jonathanchait @bariweiss @conor64 https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-trump-adviser-jason-miller-sues-will-menaker-of-chapo-trap-house-over-tweet …
-
-
Jeet, would you care to do a side-by-side comparison of which of us more frequently defends freedom of expression for people who don’t share our own views? I suspect it will expose you—the person who regularly trolls with charges of inconsistency—to be far inferior on that metric
8 replies 1 retweet 24 likes -
You write about free speech far more than I do, and with an admirable consistency (although we could quarrel about relative salience given to stories). Which is why a comment on this case (which seems to be a clear case of libel chill) would be welcome.
2 replies 0 retweets 17 likes -
What a striking change in tone and comportment now that you’ve stopped pandering to your in-group with misleading sniping
4 replies 0 retweets 17 likes -
My in-group of .... what exactly? Chapo fans? I'm in their bad books for criticizing show's dominance politics. I'm no closer to Mennaker's politics than you. I just find the relative centrist silence on this worth remarking on.
5 replies 0 retweets 16 likes -
No, Jeet, you were trolling. And now you’re dissembling. If you wanted Conor to comment on this case, you would not have called him out as a “free speech worrywart,” meaning that his concerns are unjustified. The clear implication was that he is a hypocrite.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @IshBiggs7 @JeremyBiggs7 and
Free speech worrywart means someone who spends more time fretting about the state of free speech than I think is warranted. But it's precisely such people that should be concerned about libel chill. And yet they still refuse to comment on this case. That's a problem, no?
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
By what standard has Conor in particular “refused” to remark on the case? If you simply wanted to call his attention to it, you could have done so without the obvious trolling. As you said, he is among the most admirably consistent voices on free speech issue.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @IshBiggs7 @JeremyBiggs7 and
As far as I can tell, none of the people mentioned (and many other free speech defenders) have made an unequivocal statement condemning the libel chill in this case. What you call "trolling" is my way of noting this fact. They're still free to prove me wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
If you’re noting this because you think the case is important and demands attention, you could have avoided the needless provocation. Instead, you decided that failure to issue a statement of unequivocal condemnation within 24 hours constitutes a refusal to comment.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
"Needless provocation" or needful provocation? I'm not a civility fetishist or fan of tone policing, so I think provocation can be good.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet @JeremyBiggs7 and
I would say “alienating provocation grounded in substantively wrongheaded premises”
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, I know. I read you regularly and agree with you frequently and think you were most on-point when you asked of Chapo: “Can a style so naturally suited to the right really work for the left?” What you’re doing here is “more likely to breed resistance than assent.”
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.