It's still on Twitter. Behind just one more click pic.twitter.com/TvDSGSgMTI— Division Bell 🇺🇦 (@A_Division_Bell) June 20, 2022
This ad is absolutely insane. It’s such an indictment of our country that maniacs like this are serious contenders for elected office. https://t.co/3msWr309QE— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 20, 2022
At some point it's like complaining about porn by saying "LOOK AT THIS! ISN'T THAT PORNOGRAPHY TO YOU??!!!???!!!
This guy, forced from office once already, is glamorizing targeted political assassination under the MAGA banner to win his next election. The clear & present danger facing our democracy is right here, inside the #GOP pic.twitter.com/UDVKLOqlqP— jon steinman (@jonsteinman) June 20, 2022
Which brings us straight back to Maggie Habermann's observation:
and now it's on WaPo - imagine @washingtonpost being slower than FB & Twitter to ditch it!— CÓRaghallaigh (@ZatZatKat) June 20, 2022
Is anyone at all confused about what Greitens is doing? https://t.co/WYqozUXOKU— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) June 20, 2022
The usual redoubt, itself just a variation on "cancel culture!" Am I tolerating hateful speech by not declaring it hateful speech which all right-thinking people should want to see expunged from the public discourse? (Which, no, is not a free speech issue.) Maybe I simply oppose hateful speech by ignoring it? I understand Greitens is in a large field of primary candidates, which means he's the poster child for "Ignore him and maybe he'll go away." Don Hoffman and Allen West made some truly outrageous claims in the primary against Greg Abbott. No one really cared, and they vanished without a trace. Lyndon LaRouche regularly ran for POTUS, and regularly alleged the Queen of England sat at the center of an international drug ring (what, you thought "Q" was original?). Anybody remember him now? Nobody "implicitly tolerated" LaRouche; they treated him as a crank.
So what's the alternative, then? The ad is left alone, thus, implicitly tolerated?— Corey Miles (@CoreyBMiles) June 20, 2022
That's the free speech issue, because the actions are not those of the government. The joke is right, too: are we free if we insist on binding ourselves to every person whose expression is annoying, offensive, or just stupid? If I do fight every statement that I disagree with, am I tolerating it if it isn't banned/taken down/removed?
When Woke Tyrants At Big Tech Get To Decide Whether or Not You Can Call For The Murder Of Political Opponents On Their Sites, Are We Really Free?— ConstitutionalMischiefHat (@Popehat) June 20, 2022
Is it really worth the effort?
Imagine the sheer amount of psychic energy it must consume in order to keep one's outrage constantly stoked to such high heat. pic.twitter.com/E5FDg2zTjb— Jeff B. is *BOX OFFICE POISON* (@EsotericCD) June 19, 2022