This week, we’ve got a lot of commonalities among the winners. Both top comments on both sides are very similar responses to the same thing! On the insightful side, both winners come from our post about how the FBI showing up at a journalist’s door is intimidation, and both are replies to someone who questioned this assertion. In first place, it’s an anonymous response:
Normally, if you wanted to talk to a journalist (or literally anyone else) about their job, you would call/email them at their place of employment and request a meeting.
Showing up randomly at their house instead says that
1) the government considers this a matter for their private, rather than professional, identity (or at least, wishes it to appear that their private life is on the hook) and
2) that the government considers this concerning enough to require disseminating their personal address to an unknown number of law enforcement personnel, who may or may not have been told anything other than “this person is of interest to the FBI.”Do you think it would equally as un-intimidating if a couple men showed up at the local prosecutor’s home to ask some questions about the upcoming trial of Al Capone? After all, they left when requested and didn’t contact him again.
In second place, it’s TKnarr with another take on the same reply:
How would you feel if, out of the blue, a couple of big, muscular guys in biker leathers and dark glasses showed up on your doorstep wanting to talk to you about some work your employer was having you do and the vendors you were working with? They want names, phone numbers, contract details, delivery dates, all kinds of things they have no business asking about but are asking about anyway, and even if they aren’t breaking out the baseball bats yet they’re being really really insistent about you answering their questions.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a reply from John Roddy to someone continuing to harp on the nonexistent publisher-platform dichotomy:
The only person claiming that social media companies don’t editorialize is YOU. THEY are telling the courts that they do. And the courts are confirming that it is their right. Not because of 230, but because of 1A.
Next, it’s Eric Goldman with a comment about the silly anti-buying-bot bill:
Wil Congress ever learn?
Five years ago, Congress enacted the BOTS Act to target event ticket sniping. The FTC has brought a grand total of 1 BOTS Act enforcement action since then, yet I doubt anyone feels like event ticket sniping is fixed. So why would Congress think an anti-toy sniping law will fare any better?
Over on the funny side, both winners are similar jokes in response to our post about how Josh Hawley thinks Twitter should be broken up. BernardoVerda took first place:
Typo in the headline
Josh Hawley doesn’t ‘think’.
In second place, it’s David with his own version:
“Josh Hawley Thinks”
Found the mistake.
A talent for finding words resonating with an outrage-steered crowd is more instinct than thought. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be wary of catching rabies.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a Simpsons reference in an anonymous response to a prolific commenter’s confusing and unhinged free speech rant:
Principal koby : Why, there are no children here at the 1A Club either. Am I so out of touch?
No. It’s the courts who are wrong.
Finally, it’s Rocky on our post about the revelation that the Missouri government knew journalists were not at fault in its data security fiasco, calling back to an earlier exchange:
Now I’ll just wait for tp to come here and apologize for how wrong he was.
Oh wait, Satan just called and said that Hell isn’t due to freeze over anytime soon…
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon