in the vicinity
Kurtz: The free speech debate about Sarah Jeong and Alex Jones
‘MediaBuzz’ host Howard Kurtz weighs in on the increasing difficulty of the defense of the New York Times for the setting of Sarah Jeong, a writer with a history of racist and anti-Trump Twitter, while Facebook, Apple and other tech giants, comfortable, prohibition of Alex Jones.
Their cases could not be more different. But it is always difficult to defend, the New York Times, Facebook, Apple and other tech giants are for the setting of a writer with a history of racist and anti-Trump Twitter, while comfortable, prohibition of Alex Jones.
The debate between Sarah Jeong, the Times’ newest editorial writer, and initially concentrated on their Twitter to denigrate postings and taunt white men. But critics have found that equally troubling tweets since then.
First it was the discovery of the “F— the police” and “cops are a-holes.” How does a great American newspaper to defend?
The times, and Jeong, said, first of all, she regrets the white men-are-“bull—-“-and-“dogs” – tweets, however, was the imitation of the online hate she was drawing as an Asian-American woman.
I didn’t buy that explanation, but it felt a bit of sympathy for Jeong as the latest victim of a social media mob, you call for to fire. As all too often in these matters, the conservatives led the prosecution against Jeong, just like the liberal opposition to stand at the top of the online against such conservative writers such as Kevin Williamson (hired and then quickly unhired by the Atlantic about his past comments, such as equating abortion and murder).
But the latest Jeong tweets, noted The Washington Times, are just as unacceptable as the attacks on white men and police officers.
Jeong has tweeted that “trump is Hitler”, “Trump=Hitler”, “the trump is basically hitler” and “Hitler Was as rapey as Donald Trump?”
How is it even remotely acceptable to the President of the United States to a Nazi who was one of history’s greatest mass murderer? The times would never be a writer for hire, the thrown charges against a Democrat. So there is a stinking double standard here.
The paper has refused to say a comment yesterday, among other things, “we had open discussions with Sarah as part of our thorough review, including an assessment of their social-media history.” The views of the times is that it is fomenting an orchestrated campaign against Jeong, the wants of people with an agenda and the company. This is understandable, but the toxic nature of the tweets has ensured that this is not a one-day story.
In contrast, If the editorial staff recently hired and unhired writer Quinn Norton, and it was about tweets that were hostile to homosexuals, non-white people in General. So there is a line for the time—it’s just that, somehow, Jeong do not exceed.
In the above-mentioned Atlantic, National Review, Reihan is trying sallam to explain, Jeong view on the world:
“Many of the white-bashers of my acquaintance were the highly educated and affluent Asian American professionals. So, why do you do it?”
He says it is often trolling glorified “the most transgressive, what you can get away with the statement, without they are actually called. In this sense, it is a way of establishing solidarity: we are All in this room, and we have nothing but contempt for those who do not do this. And some may well be meant as a defiant retort to bigotry.”
Salam argues that especially Asian-Americans, “embracing the culture of the upper white self-flagellation can track avowedly enlightened white eager to cheer on their Asian American comrades, show that (in the abstract, faceless, uncounted) lower white people, what for.”
This still seems to me like an intellectual kind of way can justify, not a “skeptic retort, bigotry,” but the good old bigotry.
Andrew Sullivan, says that “#cancel black people to fly in the New York Times, what would it be? Or imagine, someone tweeted that the Jews “fit for life underground such as crawling goblins’ or that they enjoyed ‘cruel, old Latina women”, and then is welcomed and celebrated by a liberal newsroom. Not exactly in the cards.”
As a member of a minority, Sullivan said, Jeong is considered to be “incapable of racism,” and that is why she “apologized, nor for the white people, you reviled or acknowledged that their tweets were racist. Still, she took responsibility for you.”
For Alex Jones, I have a lot of pushback from conservatives, who say it is to forbid an attack on the First amendment to Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify, it of the popular platforms am. But it has nothing to do with the First Amendment, these are private companies who decide what content you allow.
It is a free speech question, of course, and Facebook and Twitter have been discriminated against in the past, the conservatives, and you realize you have a problem. But the case against Jones is not on the basis of his political views; it is, above all, for his promotion of conspiracy theories about the terrible Newtown rampage never happened.
Jones still has a online show; his speech was not suppressed, but it is limited by these Large Tech giants. But it would be a mistake to throw Infowars founder, who’s the blame for a “yellow journalism” campaign, how will be punished, just because on the right side.
And yet it is not difficult to understand why the conservative critics can’t believe that Sarah Jeong emerged unscathed.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and host of “MediaBuzz” (Sundays 11 p.m.). He is the author of “media madness: Donald Trump, the press, and The war for the truth.” You can follow him at @Howard Kurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.