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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
The problem is that many outlets are peddling garbage than TOO MANY people watch & read. Goal is to get more distribution of QUALITY NON-garbage journalism that many would still consume. Boycotts (& other stuff) may be method, but they aren't end goal; return to quality media is.
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.