The title of the NYT opinion piece should have simply been: "No One Should Have to Go to Jail for a Meme". Inserting the adjective "Harmless" implies that there exists some other kind of meme category called "Harmful" for which one should go to jail for posting. This implication constitutes a total undermining of the all-important distinction between "an expression of thought" versus "an action".
In some not insignificant percentage of cases, editors seem to have a knack for distorting the key insight/point being made by the article’s author by providing just the wrong headline.
It’s true that authors, esp of guest op-eds, rarely choose their headline, but if I had to guess why the editors wanted “harmless” in there it was probably to make very clear that the meme didn’t even come close to meeting the legal threshold of any of the exceptions to the First Amendment.
You should've seen some of the arguments we had in our offices back in the day! I once had a colleague standing up and screaming in a sub-editor's face for about five minutes. To be fair, the guy had completely changed the central argument of her article.
I would argue the sheriffs department in question here likely committed a federal felony by conspiring to deny the man his civil rights. Arrests are in order, but of course won’t happen.
Once again, Bravo, Greg! Important to remember: “None of this diminishes the horror of Mr. Kirk’s killing.” Because many people can’t understand that our defense of free speech is independent of the content, just like the 1st Amendment itself. Whether or not we like what he said is immaterial.
Firings over celebrations of Charlie Kirk's killing really are different though and I really can't bring myself to condemn them. If I discovered that my coworker thought it was laudable or even acceptable to climb onto a rooftop and shoot somebody for their political beliefs, it would simply not be possible for me to go to work every day alongside that person. It's very very difficult for me to see how first amendment principles, which advocate solving our disagreements through discussion, support forcing me to work alongside somebody who advocates killing me over our disagreements.
100% this. A person gets murdered for his speech, and we protect free speech by ... Supporting the people who celebrate that murder and call for more people to be murdered?
Just to be clear, the officer in this article imo does clearly not belong into this category, and neither did Kimmel; Both primarily made fun of what they perceived as insensitive double standards, and did not condone the murder itself.
The title of the NYT opinion piece should have simply been: "No One Should Have to Go to Jail for a Meme". Inserting the adjective "Harmless" implies that there exists some other kind of meme category called "Harmful" for which one should go to jail for posting. This implication constitutes a total undermining of the all-important distinction between "an expression of thought" versus "an action".
My proposed title was the even simpler “Five Weeks in Jail for a Meme”
In some not insignificant percentage of cases, editors seem to have a knack for distorting the key insight/point being made by the article’s author by providing just the wrong headline.
It’s true that authors, esp of guest op-eds, rarely choose their headline, but if I had to guess why the editors wanted “harmless” in there it was probably to make very clear that the meme didn’t even come close to meeting the legal threshold of any of the exceptions to the First Amendment.
You should've seen some of the arguments we had in our offices back in the day! I once had a colleague standing up and screaming in a sub-editor's face for about five minutes. To be fair, the guy had completely changed the central argument of her article.
Dear Greg,
I am glad that you are defending Larry Bushart's right to speak.
thanks,
randy
Best of luck with this case, and keep up the good work.
Good work, Greg. This case absolutely cries out for legal redress, and I’m glad that you’re on it!
I would argue the sheriffs department in question here likely committed a federal felony by conspiring to deny the man his civil rights. Arrests are in order, but of course won’t happen.
That’s just Dumpster Fire’s Michigan Weather Report.
Once again, Bravo, Greg! Important to remember: “None of this diminishes the horror of Mr. Kirk’s killing.” Because many people can’t understand that our defense of free speech is independent of the content, just like the 1st Amendment itself. Whether or not we like what he said is immaterial.
This is truly chilling. His comment was, by internet standards, incredibly measured. Thanks for all you do for Bushart and people like him.
Firings over celebrations of Charlie Kirk's killing really are different though and I really can't bring myself to condemn them. If I discovered that my coworker thought it was laudable or even acceptable to climb onto a rooftop and shoot somebody for their political beliefs, it would simply not be possible for me to go to work every day alongside that person. It's very very difficult for me to see how first amendment principles, which advocate solving our disagreements through discussion, support forcing me to work alongside somebody who advocates killing me over our disagreements.
Did you actually read Bushart’s comment you brain-damaged moron?
100% this. A person gets murdered for his speech, and we protect free speech by ... Supporting the people who celebrate that murder and call for more people to be murdered?
Just to be clear, the officer in this article imo does clearly not belong into this category, and neither did Kimmel; Both primarily made fun of what they perceived as insensitive double standards, and did not condone the murder itself.
Always proud to support the important work of FIRE.
My mother country shames me.
I agree completely Mr. Ahonen. I restacked the relevant portion of Mr. Lukianoff’s piece with a comment similar to your own.
https://substack.com/profile/4569276-paul-mcguane/note/c-181767012?r=2pxoc&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action