Please show me where AOC specifically endorses using guillotines as an appropriate symbol for Democratic solidarity.
Can we at least enjoy the show as they go down?
2 Likes
The point is - we need solidarity if we are to achieve justice… and tone policing ain’t it.
Spend more time taking action against inequity.
Propriety does not rightness make; the foulest racist is still a racist even when couching words in pretensions of scholasticism. So too are the robber barons unjust, and the poor justified in calling for redress.
Redress will not come until the system is reformed and the influence of the robber baron purged. Until the coffers are returned to the people and exploitation ceases, we are justified in word and action.
Sacklers fortune is literal blood money, an empire built on corpses. Don’t lecture me about what verbal imagery to evoke.
7 Likes
Addiction is a choice! What fools we’ve all been for all these years! 
7 Likes
"If I don’t sell it to them, someone else will. "
~ Every drug dealer that I’ve ever known.
Opportunistic-predator “logic.”
7 Likes
Right. Not even the French have executed anyone by guillotine since 1977.
5 Likes
We have received a legal letter from Thomas A. Clare, of Clare Locke LLP, writing on behalf of the Sacklers expressing the family’s concern that the image of a guillotine and the “guillotine watch” tag…
This is unfortunate. I consider the Sacklers despicable scum. And while I opposed the use of the imagery, I’m also sorry that it gave these scum leverage to do something that almost never happens here at BB, where a collection of scumbags get to force BB to alter a post about said scumbags and apologize for it.
When AOC wrote "Solidarity>“civility” I don’t think she meant “do stuff that will give the opposition leverage over you” as this did. People may not need to be “civil” about the Sacklers, but we do need to be smart, and the “Solidarity>“civility”” point isn’t an unlimited free pass to do anything and be backed by Dems ala the Trump can do no wrong GOP.
It is unfortunate, but not because the use of the imagery could reasonably be interpreted in any way as the incitement to violence the Sacklers’ legal attack dogs claimed. I don’t doubt that the family has been threatened seriously many times by leftists, but those making the threats generally suggest methods other than an 18th century device that hasn’t been used in the West for generations and aren’t pacifists who are opposed to violent revolutions (like Cory and the vast majority of the BB community).
If there was any legitimate leverage, Cory’s omission of “alleged” when he called them criminals was strong enough. Pretending that the historical political-economic phenomenon symbolised by the image of the guillotine (see above) doesn’t exist because it gives conservatives an opening to make disingenuous accusations doesn’t serve anyone who wants to see change. Denying what’s happened in the past when inequality reached these levels, or continuing to pretend we’ve reached the End of History is not something liberals or progressives should be doing.
[if you can come up with a better and smarter iconic shorthand for the phenomenon than the guillotine I’d be interested to hear it]
I hope that this incident will be an exception, and that Cory and the other Authors will continue to use both the admonitory guillotine imagery and the “guillotine watch” tag as they have in the past.
5 Likes
You are basically setting up Cory to get sued and lose. Gawker should have one their case. But deep pockets can win cases by just trying over and over again until they score a win.
He would have lost on not using “alleged” – the complaints about the guillotine stuff wouldn’t survive any court challenge (which, I agree, would have been very costly if not ruinous).
I suspect that throwing in an exception in this case regarding the iconography was mainly about placating the Sacklers’ lawyers to make them go away this time. I understand that and will understand Cory’s avoidance of using the image or tag in further posts about the Sacklers. Otherwise, he should keep using it for the reasons I mentioned above.
It’s a shame, because the juxtaposition of the guillotine with a pill-splitter was just perfect in this case.
That’s a risk any media outlet’s publisher takes on just about any story criticising a wealthy person or corporation. Imposing a blanket chilling speech restriction due to one vexatious threat by one well-funded party is not something that this site is prone to do, as the many “go f*ck yourself” letters published here in response to similar lawyer’s letters written on behalf of deep-pocketed clients will attest.
3 Likes
Well, thanks to Section 230, you can do all the things you want Cory to do and take the risk for yourself - which will be lower since comments aren’t as high profile as posts.
Indeed, and I will continue to do so. I still hope that Cory and the rest of the Happy Mutants feel the same way about the guillotine issue, and look at this as a battle strategically avoided rather than the general surrender you and the other hand-wringers here would prefer.
Also, don’t think that any highly-paid legal firm with a client this petty wouldn’t take a peek into the comments section of an article they object to in order to try and bolster his case (and perhaps find co-defendants). If Section 230 didn’t protect commenters, your calling the Sacklers “scumbags” would be more legitimately actionable (though still frivolous) than anything I wrote in this topic.
2 Likes
I think you misunderstand. Section 230 doesn’t protect commenters, it protects the website.
And scumbags isn’t actionable because it is term that is entirely opinion, unlike “criminal” which can be an opinion or a claim of fact, hence why I used scumbags to charictarize my opinion of the Sacklers.
In effect and combined with site policies regarding user anonymity and acceptable conduct, it ends up protecting commenters, too. Which is why none of us are worried about getting sued for discussing this as we have and which is why you feel so comfortable throwing around the term “scumbags” to describe an entire family instead of specific members of it.
[As I recall, one branch of the family has denounced the criminal behaviour of Purdue and is donating a portion of its wealth not as whitewashing but as a sort of penance – are they scumbags, too?]
If you think that Cory as an official Author on this outlet could just call the entire family “scumbags” without backing up that opinion (in the same way you did) and get away with it, you’re mistaken. As my edit above (made before you replied) indicates, it would be a frivolous action, but so would the action focused on his the use of the guillotine imagery that they were actually threatening (in connection with the much less frivolous action threatened over his omission of “alleged”).
I use the term “scumbag” here a lot, but it’s always backed up and specific to the referenced standard behaviours of individuals (e.g. Richard “addiction is a choice” Sackler) or corporations (e.g. Purdue Pharma, which also can be called “criminal” due to its felony plea) or organisations or industries.
3 Likes
An elegant instrument for a more civilized age
5 Likes
It’s a good contender, but the lamppost has also been in use in service of political ideology more recently than the guillotine has (see Nazi summary “justice” at the end of WWII) and isn’t designed for a single violent purpose. Due to the first aspect, I don’t think it would satisfy the criteria of the pearl-clutchers here.
On the other hand, as others have pointed out, it has Edith Piaf going for it.
4 Likes
[emphasis added]
So, no, Section 230 isn’t what protects you. It is BB’s policies and the likelihood they would object to a subpoena for your email address and IP addresses.
I believe he could under US law. It’s not a term of fact. But, admittedly, I’m not a lawyer, and even a lawyer’s opinion is subject to refutation by a judge who may decide otherwise. Also, you are equivocating on “get away with”, saying that frivolousness suits count as not getting away with saying something. There is nothing you can say that can’t be be taken to court with a frivolousness suit. You can literally be sued for anything. The question is whether or not the plaintiff is likely to prevail. And that is where Cory made a huge mistake calling people “criminal” absent a conviction, which can be “defamation per se”, and why he uncharacteristically backed down instantly and completely, no doubt under the advice of highly competent council.
Exactly. Its function is to illuminate the shadowy corners of our society in the interests of public safety, and who could object to that?
And thank you for the musical interlude. We should all take a deep breath and remember that if we work together in a common cause, it will indeed be fine.
4 Likes
My point exactly regarding this legal threat. I’m fully in agreement with the notion that the plaintiff would have prevailed on Cory’s omission of the critical word “alleged”, but independent of that the guillotine imagery alone wouldn’t be the basis for a winning action and isn’t something I’d wring my hands over in any way.
In other words, if Cory had called them “alleged criminals” (or just referred to Purdue Pharma as “criminal”) a letter sent just about the guillotine stuff would have been met with another artisianal “f*ck you” letter from what I agree are BoingBoing’s highly competent legal counsel.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
