Sean Spicer threatens reporter who emailed a question


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2017/09/21/sean-spicer-threatens-reporter.html


#2

You mean good ol’ Spicy wasn’t “just doing a thankless job”?


#3

Wait, @beschizza send the emails in question? Oh, no, It was Mike Allen from the linked story at Axios.


#4

So much for that ‘rebrand’…


#5

giphy


#6

Now he’s insisting he never knowingly lied to the public, even though that was the entire basis of his Emmy bit.

So I guess he’s going with the “I’m not a liar I’m an idiot” defense?


#7

I don’t really find this to be all that terrible or anything…I dunno. He said “leave me alone or ill contact an attorney” is that really that bad a stance or phrasing?


#8

" Sean Spicer threatens reporter who emailed a question"

With what?

The tiny bit of pathos he built up at the Emmys?
Threatening to go online in the White House Easter Bunny suit?


#9

An unsolicited email from a reporter is not a basis for legal action.


#10

It is often very difficult to know the tone of a text message. While I think Spicer is a total shit just for carrying Trump’s filthy water, the tone of that brief message might just be exasperation; I imagine he’s getting tons of emails and texts. The bogus legal threat would be a ham-fisted bluff to try and get people to stop contacting him.

Welcome to the world of ‘celebrity’, Sean. Get used to it or get lost.


#11

cc @Brainspore

this. I am not suggesting nor honestly do I care about the legalities of it. Someone contacted him, he said leave me alone.I feel he isn’t stating it any differently than I would if a telemarketer contacted me multiple times “Please stop calling me or I will pursue whatever legal means at my disposal to address your harassment”

Is this a threat? Maybe strict definition I guess. Is it wrong or rude…not really.


#12

This post is very interesting and all, but this part concerns me “The desire for there to be something under this, some warmer more human creature behind the mask, is just another disease of that liberal center everyone keeps warning you about.” Dehumanizing Sean for behaving the way he does erases the very real part of ALL of us who would do the same rotten things given the right circumstance. We can denounce what people in the t**** admin do without dehumanizing them AND without watering down our ideas of better ways of doing things.


#13

Perhaps Melissa McCarthy did her job a little bit too well, and now there’s an overly powerful association between him and hilarity? (And could this be a sign of things to come?)


#14

He’s being elevated to celebrity status for no other reason than the rotten things he’s done on behalf of a repugnant President. Even if you don’t think he’s the Devil, the idea that he’s literally being wined and dined by Hollywood instead of being held to account for his part in a criminal administration ought to leave a bad taste in your mouth.


#15

You fool! You are not supposed to give him a choice! :slight_smile:


#16

It absolutely does leave a bad taste in my mouth. You’re right. Saying that we shouldn’t dehumanize someone isn’t the same thing as saying that they should be adulated.


#17

thug

Sure, let’s have our blog use a religious group’s name as an all-purpose insult. What could possibly go wrong?


#18

As long as he’s being adulated, I’m OK with a little dehumanization to balance it out.

He may be a human being, but he’s still a shitbag of a human being.


#19

Just slightly more of a religion than Scientology.

That argument isn’t going to fly. You might have found more sympathy if you argued that “Thug” is a common euphemism for the n-word.


#20

It wasn’t an argument until you made it one.

If I was looking for sympathy, I wouldn’t be speaking up for Thuggees, would I? I have a soft spot for both Kali and militant anti-colonialism. But my “argument” here is merely a statement of principle. And a suggestion that it sets a bad precedent.

That’s easily dismissed, as it is the wrong region, culture, etc. So both the insult and outrage alike would be literally misplaced. It would merely makes the bigots sound ignorant. But when people throw the word around casually, they not only risk associating themselves with racial bigotry (although perhaps in an ironic/critical way), they also risk unintentionally associating themselves with religious bigotry.

But hey, if we’re all western/colonial people here, we can probably get away with it and the poor people in India will never know, so we can dismiss the criticism as irrelevant sophistry. /s