1. Let's consider the merits of the claim that secondary boycotts designed to silence press outlets are - not as a matter of what the law allows, but as a matter of why we value free speech in the first place - as much a social good as the press itself.https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1118702541942996992 …
-
-
6. Nobody should be immune from criticism (including boycotters!). If an outlet peddles such garbage that nobody watches or reads them anymore, they die. That's fine! Marketplace of ideas at work.
Show this thread -
7. But that's not what's at issue here: it's the effort to find a chokepoint that causes some speech, based on its viewpoint, to have more difficulty being published than speech that otherwise reaches a comparable audience.
Show this thread -
8. The First Amendment protects both the media & the critics of the media. That means both must be held accountable by social norms - of a responsible press, and of responsible media criticism - where the law may not go.
Show this thread -
9. My point is simply that media critics should not use the tools of speech to try to put media out of business & silence voices it disagrees with, as opposed to exposing it to the harsh glare of truth.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Saying "burn the books" is indeed an act of speech.
Thanks. 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.