There isn't really any context that makes it ok, or better, or whatever. And that's not something that "youth" or "ignorance" explains away; you knew enough to know that Hitler had murdered Jews, tried to exterminate us, and were saying he was right
Being pro-genocide isn't a function of youth, or ignorance. It's a function of a deep moral failing. And that you still seem to think it's somehow excusable is enough evidence, for me, that you still deserve to be fired
And before anyone asks "so what should she have said": "Seven years ago, three years before I started working at the BBC, I tweeted something profoundly inexcusable. It was bigoted, and shameful, and I will forever regret it. But I'm no longer that person and ..." etc.
That's it. Acknowledge that you fucked up. Acknowledge that it was inexcusable. And argue you shouldn't have been fired because you changed.
Not (subtext) "look, it was understandable that I was pro-genocide for a bit, then. It was wrong, but there were reasons"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I will never not be tired of people who think "he was exercising his right to free speech" is a get-out-of-consequences-free card no matter what the free speech was.
Let's take @pegobry through some examples. Hey, Peg - if Eastman had spoken at a rally and argued that the age of consent should be lowered to 7, because he thinks kids start getting sexy at that age, would you take the same position?
To be clear: Such advocacy would be both abhorrent and *entirely protected by the First Amendment*. Should such a scholar's think tanks and other non-1A-bound associations distance themselves from him, @pegobry?
I personally love that the theory of the case is "Congress passed a law clarifying that website owners would not face liability for speech they hosted by moderating content, one that applies to *whatever content the site owners choose,* b/c they wanted to censor"
Trump: Congress wanted censorship!
Court: Censorship of what?
Trump: Anything, really. They just like censorship.
Court: Right wing ideology?
Trump: Obviously
Court: Left wing ideology?
Trump: That too
Court: Cat videos?
Trump: Of course. More than anything else.
Congress's goal, obviously, was a content free internet.
*Yes, I know, he filed three of the same. One against FB, one against Twitter, and a third I haven't bothered to check. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I'm gonna assume they're carbon copies and just do the one.
Let's start with the caption, which is usually a pretty tame and meaningless listing of partie--OH MY GOD
There's just so much wrong here.
First of all, as others have noted, Facebook's terms of service require any user that has a dispute with them to bring those claims in California, and the only possible plaintiffs in this supposed class action would be users, so, umm ...
That's two guys with "@aol.com" addresses for their professional email, a 13-lawyer firm that does personal injury work and insurance litigation, with lead counsel whose specialty is insurance claims and criminal defense (Matthew Baldwin), and a Greenwich CT firm whose named guys
have profiles highlighting their personal injury and wrongful death work.
The idea that *these* are the lawyers representing a former President of the United States in a (bullshit) First Amendment litigation is just laughable
Ty, I'm wondering if you explained Rule 11 and NY"s malicious prosecution laws to your client. Because you just named a boatload of useless defendants who will do nothing but be dismissed out and have claims against your client.
Let's spend some time talking about the SLAPP suit suspended lolyer @Ty_Clevenger (well, he resigned his CA bar admission while charges were pending, anyway, per docs found by @questauthority) on behalf of his apparently rape-y client, @EdHenry
Important note before we begin: @EdHenry is not, in fact, Ed HELMS. These are, somehow, two different people. Similar names? Yeah. Do they look alike? Sort of. Is Slappy Ed Henry acting in ways an Ed Helms character might? You could say so. Are they the same guy? Definitively not