The Ongoing Death of Free Speech: Prominent ACLU Lawyer Cheers Suppression of a New Book

[DemonTree]

@DrDeth

I notice that you have dodged the question about whether or not you agree with the books transphobic basis.

I posted about this issue because Greenwald wrote an essay on it, and he’s a better writer than me. As for the book, I think it talks about an important issue that needs to be investigated, and I don’t believe simply highlighting it is transphobic. But I also don’t know whether the book goes further into actual transphobia. The title is certainly clickbaity. Did any of the reviews you mention give examples of what they considered to be transphobia in the book?

Re reviews, the book is apparently now 10th on Amazon’s bestseller list in the US, which suggests there is sufficient interest to warrant some paper publishing a review. The claim is that there was interest but reviews were refused for ideological reasons, so the fact most books do not warrant reviews is a red herring.

[DemonTree]

@iiandyiiii

He’s said things in the same ballpark – like that there is something to the laptop story.

I guess that’s a no, then.

[iiandyiiii]

For the very gullible, or Trump friendly, perhaps. In the real world, the laptop story was total bullshit.

[DemonTree]

But it’s plausible bullshit, not ridiculous bullshit. Now I suppose I’ll have to look into it

Also, why were you calling GG a conservative? His husband’s a socialist Congressman and he was supporting other candidates for the same party on Twitter.

[crowmanyclouds]

If you haven’t looked into it then how can you come to the conclusion that it’s plausible bullshit and not ridiculous bullshit?

[k9bfriender]

@DemonTree

Re reviews, the book is apparently now 10th on Amazon’s bestseller list in the US, which suggests there is sufficient interest to warrant some paper publishing a review.

This is the book that Greenwald is saying is censored?

Interesting.

And I’m sure that there are plenty of transphobia cites that will give it rave reviews. That does not compel others to give it a review.

[DemonTree]

@k9bfriender

If it is, then it’s a very interesting example of people who are against cancel culture taking part in it themselves.

Yeah, if it was people against cancel culture, which we can’t be sure of. I don’t know that GG is against cancel culture, for example.

@k9bfriender

Question for you, did you send him a tweet criticizing his tweet? If it is the case that you didn’t hear about it until it was over, and so didn’t get a chance to do so, would you have?

If you had tweeted to criticize him, would you have been participating in cancel culture?

Nope, nope, and not sure. Like LHoD said:

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The ACLU is an organization with a very clear mission. If one of their top staffers is saying things publicly that undermine that mission, and they want to disassociate themselves from him, I’m okay with that, as a process .

His tweet was a lot more relevant to his job than most of the examples, and he is a public face of the organisation. So maybe it wouldn’t count on that basis. But that’s more about asking him to be fired than criticising him.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@DemonTree

His tweet was a lot more relevant to his job than most of the examples, and he is a public face of the organisation. So maybe it wouldn’t count on that basis. But that’s more about asking him to be fired than criticising him.

Yup. You’re not actually concerned about cancel culture, as long as your ox isn’t gored. We’re in broad agreement that it’s not the process that’s the problem, and I hope you’ll remember that going forward.

[QuickSilver]

@crowmanyclouds

If you haven’t looked into it then how can you come to the conclusion that it’s plausible bullshit and not ridiculous bullshit?

If someone said, ‘I have a laptop that belongs to Hunter Biden with incriminating information’, a reasonable response is to ask for evidence and examine whatever evidence may have been provided. IOW: plausible bullshit.

If someone said, ‘I have evidence that Hunter Biden is a shape shifting alien lizard’, a reasonable response is GTFOH! IOW: Ridiculous bullshit.

I realize that once examined, plausible bullshit can become ridiculous bullshit. But in the two examples used to compare the two stories, we don’t necessarily start from the same place, even though we end up there.

[E-DUB]

You have the right to free speech. You don’t necessarily have the right to exercise it using my PA system.

[k9bfriender]

@DemonTree

Yeah, if it was people against cancel culture, which we can’t be sure of.

They were criticizing him for wanting a book deplatformed.

[DemonTree]

@k9bfriender

This is the book that Greenwald is saying is censored?

Interesting.

Streisand effect, perhaps?

@k9bfriender

They were criticizing him for wanting a book deplatformed.

There’s an overlap between censorship and cancel culture, but I don’t think they’re exactly the same.

[k9bfriender]

@QuickSilver

If someone said, ‘I have a laptop that belongs to Hunter Biden with incriminating information’, a reasonable response is to ask for evidence and examine whatever evidence may have been provided.

And when it is made plain that that evidence is bullshit, it should end there.

Okay, forget lizardmen, since you consider that to be too implausible to contemplate. Would you need to hear both sides if they are called pedophiles? I mean, they do exist.

[DrDeth]

@DemonTree

Re reviews, the book is apparently now 10th on Amazon’s bestseller list in the US, which suggests there is sufficient interest to warrant some paper publishing a review. The claim is that there was interest but reviews were refused for ideological reasons, so the fact most books do not warrant reviews is a red herring.

Well, since I linked to several reviews, the claim that there are no reviews of the book is rather disingenuous. True the reviews I linked to are by trans people claiming the book is transphobic, but since those exist I am sure others do also.

Have you searched for reviews? or just taking his word for it?

[DemonTree]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Yup. You’re not actually concerned about cancel culture, as long as your ox isn’t gored. We’re in broad agreement that it’s not the process that’s the problem, and I hope you’ll remember that going forward.

I’m not sure that’s true. Other people have been cancelled for opinions I disagree with and I still thought it was wrong. What distinction are you making when you say content?

[QuickSilver]

@k9bfriender

And when it is made plain that that evidence is bullshit, it should end there.

A little mockery might even be in order.

@k9bfriender

Okay, forget lizardmen, since you consider that to be too implausible to contemplate. Would you need to hear both sides if they are called pedophiles? I mean, they do exist.

I mean, we listened to and evaluated accusations by Tara Reide, before dismissing them. So, yeah. Kinda would. Don’t you think?

[k9bfriender]

@DemonTree

Streisand effect, perhaps?

No, that’s different. This is because it got plenty of promotion by transphobes. Hate sells. Everyone who is anyone who wants to find a reason to hate on transpeople have heard of this book. It didn’t become popular because it was ignored by mainstream media, it became popular because it was promoted by right wing hate sites.

@DemonTree

There’s an overlap between censorship and cancel culture, but I don’t think they’re exactly the same.

If censorship is being done by anything other than a govt entity, then it is being done by people. If people are the ones who are suppressing a POV, then how is that not the same as your definition of censorship.

I’ll agree that they are not the same, but your definitions of the two have certainly blurred the line quite a bit.

Why don’t you explicitly define them?

[DrDeth]

A brief search on Google shows ten pages of reviews.

Daily Mail, Christian Post, Wordpress, National Review and more. Most written before Greenwalds article, the National Review on 10/1, which shows Greenwald is a lying asshole.

The Christian Post review is a positive one, except it was written by a contributor to the book, so bogus as fuck.

[DrDeth]

@DemonTree

I posted about this issue because Greenwald wrote an essay on it, and he’s a better writer than me. As for the book,

I note you dodged the question again.

[k9bfriender]

@QuickSilver

I mean, we listened to and evaluated accusations by Tara Reide, before dismissing them.

And they were dismissed because they were implausible.

There are still people pushing the Tara Reide story. Should they be given space in your column to continue pushing their story?

If some random guy calls CNN and says that Biden had his child kidnapped to be sold into sex slavery, should that person be given time? Or should a cursory glance tell them that it is not a story that is worth running, and never bring it up?

It’s the same with the laptop. It was looked at, seemed to have absolutely no credibility, so more or less ignored. Then, when it became a popular story due to right wing media pushing it, mainstream media took a closer look at it, and debunked it more thoroughly.

It sounds as if what you want to happen is exactly what is happening. I’m not sure what your objection is.