1. Tom Flanagan & his media allies are trying to rewrite history. Are we going to let them get away with it?
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
2. Flanagan's original controversial remarks about viewing child porn as being a "taste in pictures" not causing harm to others made in 2013
1 reply 4 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
3. Flanagan & his allies (notably Jonathan Kay & Margaret Wente) now talk as if Flanagan was referring to works of the imagination.
1 reply 5 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
4. In Wente's terms, Flanagan was talking about things like "obscene Japanese comic books"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
5. But if you look back at what Flanagan said, his apology & also the defenses made in 2013 it's clear he didn't mean works of imagination
1 reply 3 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
6. Instructive to compare Jon Kay 2013 with Jon Kay 2014: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/01/jonathan-kay-the-mobbing-of-tom-flanagan-is-unwarranted/ … & http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/11/jonathan-kay-on-tom-flanagan-a-media-mobbing-victim-tells-his-tale/ …
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
7. In 2013 Kay understood Flanagan to be talking about actual photos & videos of abuse. Kay argued even so TF's remarks defensible.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
8. In 2014, Kay muddies water by suggesting that TF's concern was works of the imagination being lumped in with photos/videos.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
9. Fact Flanagan's allies don't defend 2013 remarks on own terms now but re-interpret them suggests original remarks indefensible
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
10. As Flanagan's book gets reviewed, will re-writing of history continue or will reviewers note what was actually said in 2013?
3 replies 4 retweets 0 likes
11. Advice to all reviewers of Flanagan: go back to 2013 remarks, TF's apology and also defenses of TF in 2013. It'll illuminate discussion!
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
12. One thing that can & should be said in defense of Flanagan is that some of the criticism of him has been over the top & false.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
13. Flanagan is not, contra some of his critics, a pedophile, NAMBLA member, etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.