Twitter user Douglass Mackey sentenced to 7 months in prison after being found guilty of election interference for making memes disparaging Hillary

[YorkieGal]

Indeed. Heaven forbid one should bother reading anything more than the headline. Almost 80% of the article explains in quite some detail why the guy was convicted. And it wasn't because he made some cheeky memes for a laugh.

I don't get it. There have been umpteen posts explaining this and virtually the whole piece from the news outlet explains it all yet it takes 160+ posts for the penny to drop.

If someone acknowledges error, is it very difficult for you to accept that with understanding? Is your view of educating someone disparaging them even after they acknowledge they have learned from a mistake? Are you ever wrong, misguided etc? If so, would you admit it publicly or continue with arrogance?

Since you are on a discussion/debate forum, I would think you would be happy if someone has come to the same conclusion after being enlightened, and further acknowledge the reason for that enlightenment.

I'm sure you only have good intent here and are not here just to evidence your superior, infallible intellect.

 

[Bradskii]

If someone acknowledges error, is it very difficult for you to accept that with understanding? Is your view of educating someone disparaging them even after they acknowledge they have learned from a mistake? Are you ever wrong, misguided etc? If so, would you admit it publicly or continue with arrogance?

Since you are on a discussion/debate forum, I would think you would be happy if someone has come to the same conclusion after being enlightened, and further acknowledge the reason for that enlightenment.

I'm sure you only have good intent here and are not here just to evidence your superior, infallible intellect.

I'm expressing a certain amount of frustration that all the details of the case that have been presented numerous times, almost from the second post - no, from the very first post as all the details necessary to make a reasonable call were in the linked article, have been pointedly ignored by so many people.

This was a thread that should have lasted 5 or 6 posts at most. But it's so typical of so many threads regarding politics in this forum. Start off with a headline and that's all that anyone needs as a basis for arguing. There seems to be no interest in digging a little deeper. Or, in this case, not even reading the article which was presented.

That said, I commend you for admitting that you had been led astray by some of the initial arguments which omitted all relevant details. I can only hope that others might follow your example.

 

[YorkieGal]

I'm expressing a certain amount of frustration that all the details of the case that have been presented numerous times, almost from the second post - no, from the very first post as all the details necessary to make a reasonable call were in the linked article, have been pointedly ignored by so many people.

This was a thread that should have lasted 5 or 6 posts at most. But it's so typical of so many threads regarding politics in this forum. Start off with a headline and that's all that anyone needs as a basis for arguing. There seems to be no interest in digging a little deeper. Or, in this case, not even reading the article which was presented.

That said, I commend you for admitting that you had been led astray by some of the initial arguments which omitted all relevant details. I can only hope that others might follow your example.

Many thanks. I did read the articles but, obviously, not well enough and still haven't gone back to read them to find where the info was presented initially, admittedly.

100% agree that people should read more than headlines and, even when doing so, read more than one source regarding information before forming any conclusions.

Have a good day.

 

[JustOneWay]

Indeed. Heaven forbid one should bother reading anything more than the headline. Almost 80% of the article explains in quite some detail why the guy was convicted. And it wasn't because he made some cheeky memes for a laugh.

I don't get it. There have been umpteen posts explaining this and virtually the whole piece from the news outlet explains it all yet it takes 160+ posts for the penny to drop.

I see it a bit differently. Why would somebody read an article which points out the facts which led to a conviction and go page after page ignoring the stark evidence to continue pushing the idea a person was convicted for making memes as a means of freedom of speech? The reason certainly is not ignorance nor is it because it may even be believed, I sense it is something else....and there is a word for it but at the moment I can't pinpoint the correct word. I have a feeling this has a purpose, but not for the purpose of trying to exonerate the poor meme maker.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's not separate at all. It's the crux of the conversation and the whole reason everyone who disagrees with this disagrees.

If their disagreement with this stems from how the NY Post story was handled on social media outlets, and trying to compare the two situations, then they're comparing apples and oranges.

For instance, various entities don't have an obligation to tell "the whole truth" or "tell every truth" (it'd be better if they did IMO, I was a fan of the fairness doctrine in media that used to exist, but that's another subject), however, they can't criminally lie or commit libel/slander.


An entity has a right to tell truths, as they honestly see them, but they don't have the right to use someone else's megaphone in order to do it.

As I've heard it quipped before: "You have a right to preach & teach (v), but you don't have a right to reach (n)"


Malicious and criminal lying on the other hand, is against the law regardless of audience size.

For instance, if I had a privately owned billboard in my front yard that I let people in the town use for free, I don't have to let someone put up an advertisement talking about something potentially bad my candidate of choice did, I would maintain the right and privilege to discern who I want to lend my figurative "megaphone" to in order to facilitate wider dissemination and reach. However, if I disseminated a maliciously false message about the opposing candidate that has externalities, like saying "Candidate XYZ cheated on his wife with the babysitter" (when it's not true), that becomes a legal matter (whether or I put it on my billboard, or just told it to 5 people at the grocery store)

What this guy in the case did was disseminate a lie in order to trick Black people out of voting, and they found the digital paper trail that established malicious intent on his part showing that it wasn't merely meant to be a comedic prank.

 

[USincognito]

It's disappointing that anyone would reduce and misrepresent the characterization of what this guy did as "just making memes". But given posters willingness to compare illegal, prosecuted in court, outcomes of messages that they support, with unsubstantiated, unprosecuted and unproven rumours of their political enemies, it shouldn't be surprising.

That's become the MO of the right. Those who attacked the Capitol become "tourists invited in and given tours", espionage becomes "just took a few documents", election fraud becomes "made a phone call". Meanwhile rioting and arson becomes "burned whole cities down"*.

* RIP Portland

 

[Pommer]

And there it is again. "The left hates law and order because they love crime, especially in blue big cities, so if they don't hate the DOJ they're hypocritical" which is hilariously discordant with, "the DOJ is corruptly in the tank for Dems which is why they're persecuting conservatives".

The doublethink is impressive, yes.

 

[rambot]

That's become the MO of the right. Those who attacked the Capitol become "tourists invited in and given tours", espionage becomes "just took a few documents", election fraud becomes "made a phone call". Meanwhile rioting and arson becomes "burned whole cities down"*.

* RIP Portland

What they consider to be equivalencies is utterly baffling to me.