This is a) an excellent response to what the NY Post did (publish nonconsensual pornography, which I'm not going to link to), and b) a response that nobody should have to give
The idea that publications will release intimate images of people without their consent—even, yes, candidates for public office!—is a dangerous guardrail to breach. This is far less high-profile than the Katie Hill case but it's still very bad lawfareblog.com/nonconsensual-…
Once again, we end up in a weird situation where the platforms are actually providing more guidance than "traditional" news orgs: Twitter bans nonconsensual pornography (though it seems unclear whether the account that initially posted this image was actually taken down)
NY does have a law against nonconsensual pornography as of 2019; but it includes an exemption for images published "for a legitimate public purpose." Hill lost her suit against the Daily Mail under a similar provision in the California NCP law lawandcrime.com/first-amendmen…
If you're looking for more resources on this, Cyber Civil Rights Initiative is a good place to start: cybercivilrights.org
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm not blaming non-journalists for not knowing what's in the report. I am saying that many (not all!) journalists and media organizations whiffed on reporting this in the moment, and that it's irresponsible to write about this news now as if we haven't known it for two years.
The explicit comparison of the 1/6 commission to the 9/11 commission here just seems ... wild. The 9/11 commission would not have worked if half the members had belonged to a political party whose supporters included a lot of people in favor of 9/11 homeland.house.gov/news/press-rel…
I would be interested to know to what extent those two cross-cutting attitudes map onto one another. Anecdotally it seems to me that there's some pretty significant correlation
Sometimes this can have paradoxically good effects, like getting Never Trump conservatives to start taking voting rights seriously!
if it's just "people you are interested in writing things," then substack is a reasonable replacement. if there's some kind of signaling function of running something in The New York Times, then this is a different question.
but that would be easier to address if NYT (or any other paper) knew what exactly it was trying to signal. and that's before we get to editorial boards which are a whole other kettle of fish
it is genuinely fascinating how quickly this view has become accepted wisdom. in 2016 it was incredibly rare to see someone making this argument. post-2020 I see it all the time