Snowflake Josh Hawley Seems To Think The 1st Amendment Means Simon & Schuster Has To Give Him A Book Contract

from the not-how-any-of-it-works dept

As a reminder, Josh Hawley is a sedition supporter who should never be near any position of power ever again. In response to his ongoing support for overturning the will of the people, book publishing giant Simon & Schuster made the totally reasonable call that it would refuse to publish the book he was preparing called (hilariously) “The Tyranny of Big Tech.” Make no mistake about it: this was Hawley’s campaign book to push for the nomination in 2024. The key authoritarian strongman move is to claim that someone else is the tyrant and that you’re hear to “save” them. That’s Josh Hawley’s entire play over the last couple of years: “big tech” is the “tyrant” that he’s here to “free” you from, through idiotically bad laws. But it’s all a game to him.

Simon & Schuster’s statement was pretty straightforward:

After witnessing the disturbing, deadly insurrection that took place on Wednesday in Washington, D.C., Simon & Schuster has decided to cancel the publication of Senator Josh Hawley’s forthcoming book, THE TYRANNY OF BIG TECH. We did not come to this decision lightly. As a publisher it will always be our mission to amplify a variety of voices and viewpoints; at the same time we take seriously our larger public responsibility as citizens, and cannot support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat to our democracy and freedom.

Right after that came out, I joked that Hawley — as per his nonsense attacks on social media — would claim that this was “unfair censorship” and introduce a new law requiring Simon & Schuster to publish his book. That joke turned out to be closer to reality than even I expected. An hour or so later, little whiny snowflake Josh Hawley, a self-proclaimed Constitutional lawyer, who has a law degree from Yale Law School and clerked at the Supreme Court, claimed that Simon & Schuster not publishing his book was somehow an attack on the 1st Amendment.

The statement reads:

My statement on the woke mob at Simon & Schuster:

This could not be more Orwellian. Simon & Schuster is canceling my contract because I was representing my constituents, leading a debate on the Senate floor on voter integrity, which they have now decided to redefine as sedition. Let me be clear, this is not just a contract dispute. It’s a direct assault on the First Amendment. Only approved speech can now be published. This is the Left looking to cancel everyone they don’t approve of. I will fight this cancel culture with everything I have. We’ll see you in court.

Every single thing that Hawley says in this is utter bullshit. It’s almost embarrassing. First of all, anyone who thinks that one of the world’s biggest publishing houses is a “woke mob” is delusional. But, it’s even worse to use the word “mob” the day after you helped inspire an actual mob to storm the Capitol building in order to overthrow the results of an election.

Hawley has no legal claim here at all. The 1st Amendment doesn’t govern this at all. He has every right to speak his mind, but he has no right to force a giant publishing house to give him a massive book contract to help his nascent Presidential campaign. If he wants to publish such a book, I hear Amazon has pretty good self-publishing tools that would allow him to do so. As to a bunch of other self-publishing platforms. Isn’t technology amazing?

And, since Hawley wants to be “clear” the only Orwellian here is Hawley himself — trying to spread his populist authoritarianism by redefining what words mean to suit his own naked greed and ambition.

But, really, all of this is just consequences for your own actions, Josh. You know, the kind of thing you used to pretend was what “conservatives” believed in.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: simon & schuster

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Snowflake Josh Hawley Seems To Think The 1st Amendment Means Simon & Schuster Has To Give Him A Book Contract”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
117 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

A reminder for those who need it

Ah, I get to break this out for the first time in 2021:

Moderation is a platform/service owner or operator saying “we don’t do that here”. Personal discretion is an individual telling themselves “I won’t do that here”. Editorial discretion is an editor saying “we won’t print that here”, either to themselves or to a writer. Censorship is someone saying “you won’t do that anywhere” alongside threats or actions meant to suppress speech.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

seedeevee (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: A reminder for those who need it

In case you missed it – there are various parts of the US government and they are not always run by the same parties or by parties that have the same interests.

In case your reading comprehension fails you again – "illegally" is a word I specifically did not use. That’s the point.

You think Congress threatening to hold corporations "accountable" for politically-tinged claims of mis-information has not led to mass censorship?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Assuming everything you said is true: No, it hasn’t. The same assholes getting kicked off Twitter can go (and have gone) to other platforms. They’re then free to say the same shit that got them banned on Twitter. If the new platform finds that acceptable, so be it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: A reminder for those who need it

Censorship is someone saying “you won’t do that anywhere” alongside threats or actions meant to suppress speech.

It’s still wrong. The Chinese government only dictates what one can say in China, but that’s still censorship. And there are people working at US television networks with the literal job title of "censor" (including cable networks, to which government censorship rules don’t apply), which is largely considered an accurate title.

Hawley’s still full of shit, of course. His only chance at a valid lawsuit is for breach of contract, which he’s denied.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The Chinese government only dictates what one can say in China, but that’s still censorship.

Can Simon & Schuster dictate what one can say in America? If not, dropping Hawley isn’t censorship. His feelings may say otherwise. But as one conservative pundit famously said: “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

there are people working at US television networks with the literal job title of "censor"

A colloquial use of the term doesn’t make what they do “censorship”. Basic cable networks edit swears and tits out of R-rated movies. But I can still see the uncut films elsewhere.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: A reminder for those who need it

" The Chinese government only dictates what one can say in China, but that’s still censorship. "

Well, yeah, but there’s still a lot of difference between the pub owner banning a patron who suddenly stood up and started screaming about tinfoil hats and alien anal probes…and a nation-state who will damn well disappear you if you ever open your mouth about <redacted> anywhere within their national borders.

In this case Hawley is not only full of shit for being Hawley, but because a publisher refusing to publish his book isn’t censorship any more than when they turn down the ten thousand and one other hopeful applicants who sent them manuscripts.

There is no excuse for Hawley not knowing this. So what we have is a United States Senator sworn to defend and represent the national constitution actively undermining that same document. A good litmus test on whether Bidens administration is serious about burying Trumpism rather than just Trump will be whether someone files a 14th amendment complaint against Hawley after the 20th.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Glenn says:

Well, we already know he can’t differentiate between govt. censorship and corporate responsibility. Here it’s just a matter of good business sense by the publisher. I sure hope he gets prosecuted for his role in inciting this attempted coup.

Orwell, though… what do you think? 1984 or Animal Farm? (How orange was Napoleon?)

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

I am shocked a publishing company due to be sold to a big competitor would stop the publication of a book by a particularly vocal member of the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights now he’s no longer likely to be in a position to help or hinder that merger.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Hawley's committee assignments

Oh I dunno, while he deserves to be stripped of his position for supporting an attempted insurrection barring that I could see some value in putting him in a committee with as much power as he deserves(none) just to get an idea as to what not to do.

While it wouldn’t hold every time(stopped clock and all) with his corrupt, hypocritical and anti-democratic nature it would at least be a good indicator that you’re doing something wrong if he supported it, and doing something right if he opposed it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Hawley's committee assignments

… for supporting an attempted insurrection…

The Whole Story in a Single Photo”, by Clint Smith, The Atlantic, Jan 8, 2021

On Wednesday afternoon, as insurrectionists assaulted the Capitol, a man wearing a brown vest over a black sweatshirt walked through the halls of Congress with the Confederate battle flag hanging over his shoulder. One widely circulated photo captured him mid-stride . . .

Consider that photo as a thousand-word response.

Antietam Creek, fought on September 17, 1862, “was the bloodiest day in American history, with a combined tally of 22,717 dead, wounded, or missing.” In stark contrast, Wednesday, January 6th’s total is, by popular reckoning, a mere five.

But does that minor toll in lives justify qualifying—minimizing the cost as ‘oh, just an attempt’ ?

During the Civil War, the Confederate Army never reached the Capitol. . . Two days ago, a man walked through the halls of government bearing the flag of a group of people who had seceded from the United States and gone to war against it.

And, another thousand words.

The Fourteenth amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868 — Reconstruction. Section 3 of that amendment prescribes a disqualification for senators of the United States.

… engaged in insurrection … or given aid or comfort…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Hawley's committee assignments

My intent has never been to downplay what happened by using the terminology of attempted insurrection, merely accuracy given ultimately it didn’t accomplish the intended goal(if anything it seems to have blown up in Trump’s face with the backlash), but if insurrection counts whether it succeeds or not(which would make sense given if an insurrection works it’s not like the ‘winners’ are going to charge themselves) I suppose I might need to work on my phrasing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Hawley's committee assignments

My intent has never been to downplay what happened…

I comprehend that.

The events of two days ago, last Wednesday, seem very far removed from the 34 hours of bombardment on April 12-13, 1861. The cannon fire of those 34 hours resulted in no deaths. So is it comparable at all? Five deaths, no deaths, does it make any damn difference?

That is a serious question.

If two-thirds of the Senate would not now vote to spit him out of that body, then perhaps his role should indeed be minimized, “oh, just a symbolic fist.” A trifling gesture that, in the grand tapestry, the world will little note, nor long remember.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Hawley's committee assignments

Hi!

It seems you have problems differentiating between traffic ordinances and the constitution. May I suggest you go back to school, many of them have special needs classes for those with learning disabilities.

Alternatively you may search the internet for traffic ordinances and the importance of stop signs and compare them to the 14th amendment in the constitution to learn how they differ. If you find this difficult you could always ask an adult to help you.

Have a nice day!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Hawley's committee assignments

Hi Rocky.

Apparently you are having problems differentiating between drunken yahoos and standing armies.

I suggest you look at some history books or even recent news coverage of Bolivia, Egypt or Thailand if you want to know what an insurrection looks like.

If your internet service provider has found you in breach of their TOS and you can not access the internet I suggest you go to your local library (if it is still open). If not, i can help you with research that will help alleviate your historical ignorance problem.problemresearch that

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Hawley is an intelligent version of Trump- making him an even greater danger. Were it not for the fact that Trump is a complete fuck-up and a lazy bum; our democracy would already be lost. Conniving wannabe despots like Hawley, Cruz and others can be given no oxygen. Even with Trump leaving, the danger to our republic is greater now than ever before. Trump’s putsch has inspired and instructed all of the despots-in-waiting. Unlike Trump, these human shit stains are highly intelligent, disciplined and emotionally stabile. They have been studying the Trump playbook and have noted what worked and what didn’t. It is no surprise that Hawley demonizes and attacks "big tech". It is his version of Trump’s demonization of mainstream media as the enemy of the people. Increasingly, social media displaces traditional media and Hawley wants to be out front as its most vocal delegitimizing force. We are entering a most fraught period of our history. The repressive forces of tyranny, disguised as "patriots" are pathologically committed, violent and increasingly organized. Without a concerted effort by the DoJ to repress white nationalist fascist groups, similar to the COINTELPRO operation against the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960’s and 1970’s; these groups will spread. While our day of national humiliation was jarring in and of itself; one only needs to read the violent, seditious, treasonous pronouncements on their message boards (like thedonald.win) to get a true insight into the malignant souls of the supporters of fascism.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Without a concerted effort by the DoJ to repress white nationalist fascist groups, similar to the COINTELPRO operation against the Ku Klux Klan

That operation was not so much targetting the triple-K as their enemies. Folks like King, for instance, were targetted for being communists, the charge of communist sympathy being proven by their opposition to institutionalized racism.

Over the years since, the FBI has changed leaders, if not reputation.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Josh Hawley is a US Senator. Either some other publisher would publish him or he could publish himself. He has not been silenced. Simon & Schuster used discretion. Josh Hawley has not been censored (which is absurd because Josh Hawley is part of the Government).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I understand that in your bubble only Governments can censor but in the real world anyone and any organization can censor.

Under such a definition "censorship" has no meaning. Me not listening to you is not censorship in the same way as Simon & Schuster saying they don’t want to be associated with Hawley is not censorship.

People not inviting you to their parties is because you’re an asshole, not because they’re censoring you.

That you refuse to recognize that explains a lot.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

"This could not be more Orwellian"

Orwell had a publishing contract…

"Simon & Schuster is canceling my contract because I was representing my constituents"

…and as participants in a free market, they have decided that your contract is not worth as much to them as the purchases made by people who are not your constituents.

"It’s a direct assault on the First Amendment"

…if you’re so stupid that you don’t know what that amendment actually says.

"Only approved speech can now be published"

By a specific publisher? Yes, that’s why your moronic ass has been talking to an editor in the run up to publication, in order to approve something for publication. Did you have a problem with that before now? If so, why did you enter into a deal with a publisher that edits your work instead of self-publishing, as the first amendment actually allows you to do?

"We’ll see you in court"

Yes, and we’ll see you laughed out of it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"It’s a direct assault on the First Amendment"

…if you’re so stupid that you don’t know what that amendment actually says.

Josh Hawley has a law degree from Yale, so I’d hazard to guess that he knows exactly what it says and is feigning ignorance for the benefit of the GOP insurrectionist base.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Don’t be too sure of that. Plenty of students graduate Yale like any other university with no clue about what the school tried to teach them. Having a degree is no [longer a] measure of education. I’ve interviewed large numbers of young people with degrees, even doctorates, who can’t answer the most basic questions about their majors and these people have come from the whole range of universities, small to large, economy to Ivy League. I mourn for the future of this country.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Some people get their degree by studying and working hard to achieve a certain standard within their chosen field. Some have their parents buy it, or get a pass because they’re big on their sports team, or do some special extra-curricular activities in some’s bedroom.

But, I’d also wonder what subject you’re talking about there. Many degrees – especially doctorates – are focussed on narrow subjects. With my experience in IT , I’ve come across graduates who are woefully unknowledgeable about things like networking, operating systems and server maintenance. But, that wasn’t part of their narrowly focussed software engineering courses, or whatever. Asking questions on what I consider to be basic stuff doesn’t mean their course was useless or that they didn’t study – it just means that they lacked the natural curiosity to venture too far outside their prescribed work.

You see this all the time, someone might be a genius in their specialised subject, but useless outside of it, even if what you’re asking them is logically related to their speciality.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Actually, it appears to be a complete non sequitur.

First off, the two are completely incomparable. Of the three you mentioned, only one is technically possible,* and given the sheer number of publishers out there, not to mention the fact that self-publishing is easier and cheaper now than ever, getting your book published after being rejected by one publisher is a hell of a lot easier than starting a drug company. And even that’s not that difficult (you never said it had to be successful).

Basically, at best, you’re using a false equivalence.

  • Cancer is actually multiple distinct diseases, so a single cure for all of them is fairly nonsensical. And there is no such thing as President of the World.
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

King Big Log Tech

So long as "Big Tech" is defined as "Oracle and Microsoft and all the big ISPs", I’m ready to cheer him on. Anyone who’s used an Oracle CRM product will be under no misapprehension as to the existence of Pure Evil, and Word/Excel/Powerpoint are the biggest productivity killers I’ve ever been exposed to.[*] And nobody doesn’t hate their monopoly ISP service, prices, and policies–they’re regularly voted most hated companies in America.

But I have a feeling JH is talking about tech companies that give you a CHOICE. You know, if you don’t like Apple there’s Android (and vice versa); I don’t care for Facebook or Twitter, so I don’t use them. I love Google search, but if I didn’t there’s always (save the foundation) Bing. Amazon ain’t the only market online: use it or not depending on who offers the best deal. CHOICE. All those big tech companies aren’t tyrannizing me; they’re just falling over themselves to come up with something I want. Succeed (and get my eyeballs) or fail (and languish all unvisited by me)–either way I’m in control, because I chose the service that best serves me.

What part of this is difficult to understand?

So Amazon won’t sell my book, Twitter twats my tweets, and Apple does whatever apple does. They fail to serve me, and they don’t get my continued business.

If there are enough people they fail to serve, someone can start another website. That’s how Google got started, even when Yahoo, AOL, Excite, etcet., were offering web searches and directories (not very good ones, sigh.) Facebook isn’t the only, or even the first, company to offer simple personal webpages.

[*] I’ve helped post the equivalent of several hundred thousand printed pages online. I used free/open-source tools. I could not have done a tenth of that work with the "competitor" Microsoft programs. And neither Facebook nor Twitter offered the right kind of hosting, so none of the pages can be found on either site. Life goes on.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: King Big Log Tech

I could not have done a tenth of that work with the "competitor" Microsoft programs.

If you had a home and student licensed version, you would likely be violating the license terms, as use is limited to student submissions and letters to friends and family. Anything else requires a commercial license.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: King Big Log Tech

"So long as "Big Tech" is defined as "Oracle and Microsoft and all the big ISPs", I’m ready to cheer him on."

Well, Microsoft today is more like Sauron went into retirement and now spends his time knitting chain mail and posting irate comments about hobbits in stray forums. Oracle, now, is still going strong.

"Anyone who’s used an Oracle CRM product will be under no misapprehension as to the existence of Pure Evil…"

There are those who claim there’s a separate circle in hell for those who develop and push Siebel on unsuspecting victims. Then there are those who’ve been forced to use it. We all know Siebel IS that extra circle of hell. I can’t imagine anyone but a twisted genius managing to design that malignant monstrosity by mistake.
Not to mention the way that, if you start using one Oracle product, the damn thing spreads. What started out as a modest trial of a CRM will eventually turn into a full-blown suite of applications requiring unceasing and highly expensive maintenance and licensing fees…forever.

"But I have a feeling JH is talking about tech companies that give you a CHOICE."

I have a feeling JH is simply a more cunning brand of snake who chants whatever slogan is likely to net him the most of Trump’s voter base for when he decides to try his own run for kingship.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"That’s a bit unfair. Essentially the gist of a EULA is "we own you" and the gist of the Constitution is "you own us"."

It would explain so much if it was just that most politicians try to open the "We the people" pdf and mistakenly assume the EULA they get to read for launching their version of adobe or nitro for the first time was, in fact, that document.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
jilocasin (profile) says:

Sounds like a contract dispute to me...

Unless he had a binding contract that the publisher is trying to wriggle out of, I can’t see how that’s illegal. Even if it was, that would be a civil matter and nothing to do with the first amendment.

Of course, with his background, he is well aware of that distinction. He’s obviously hoping that the folks he is trying to convince to nominate/vote for him don’t.

I do hope that the whole lot of them are tried for sedition. Starting with Trump, then the congressional rats that encouraged Trump’s fever dreams and then fled when their army arrived, and finally the deluded foot soldiers duped into this vain attempt to overthrow the government and appoint Trump president for life.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

just passing students to get cash & not educating them

Of course that’s what they’re doing. The universities don’t get paid based on how well graduates understand what they were taught. They get paid based on how many bodies pass through their system and whether they make it to graduation day. Naturally they’ll lower the bar to avoid drop-outs (who stop paying) and ensure the highest possible rate of paid degrees.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Naked hypocrisy

Decries ‘tyranny’ and eggs on an attempted coup, then goes legal in an attempt to force a company into publishing his propaganda when they decide that nah, they’d rather not be associated with a known seditionist and insurrectionist.

Congrats Hawley, you’ve made undeniably clear that to the extent your are against ‘tyranny’ it’s only when it’s tyranny you’re not involved in.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Insurrection

As a reminder, Josh Hawley is a sedition supporter who should never be near any position of power ever again.

Senator Patty Murray calls for resignation of Sens. Hawley, Cruz over support of ‘violent mob’”, King 5 (Seattle TV), Jan 8, 2021

“[A]t the end of the day, our job is to keep this country a democracy where voices win, not brute force. Any Senator who stands up and supports the power of force over the power of democracy has broken their oath of office. Senators Hawley and Cruz should resign.”

(Also @PattyMurray.)

 


“Insurrection” is a strong word.

Amendment XIV

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same . . . .

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
David says:

Cry me a river.

You just gotta love a populist who calls "unfair" after betting on a horse that has become unpopular.

Don’t treat politics as a game if you are a sore loser.

I mean, don’t treat politics as a game anyway since lives and livelihoods and war and peace depend on it.

Josh Hawley really should be forced to explain to the family of the capitol policeman that died in defense of him and others why he felt it necessary to continue to peddle the bullshit that got this man killed to defend the institutions of a federal republic that Hawley considers not worth respecting.

Trump had his day in court. Hundreds of days in dozens of courts, at state level, at federal level, at Supreme Court level (though the Supreme Court, with a two-thirds majority of Conservative Judges and a full third appointed by Trump himself, mainly said "don’t drop those putrid turds here as well").

Trump did not want to send the National Guard in: it was Pence who covered the back of the commander who acted on his authority to send them. Instead Trump phoned around (trying to get Tuberville on phone, for example: there are voice mails he put out to the wrong number) in order to prolong the procedure until he could organize another intervention (the military had already days before put out a definite statement signed by all living former heads of defense that the military would not intervene on his behalf).

So yes, he definitely wanted to tie his luck to Trump. And nobody should deny him his deserves.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Cry me a river.

Instead Trump phoned around (trying to get Tuberville on phone, for example: there are voice mails he put out to the wrong number) in order to prolong the procedure until he could organize another intervention

While it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump did so as well the only call of that sort I’m aware of was from Giuliani.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Cry me a river.

While it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump did so…

As riot raged at Capitol, Trump tried to call senators to overturn election”, by Sunlen Serfaty, Devan Cole and Alex Rogers, CNN, Jan 8, 2021

President Donald Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani both mistakenly made calls to Republican Sen. Mike Lee as deadly riots were unfolding at the US Capitol earlier this week, a spokesman for the senator confirmed to CNN — calls that were intended for another GOP senator the White House was frantically trying to convince to delay the counting of Electoral College votes.

Lee’s spokesman said the calls from Trump and his attorney were intended for Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a newly elected Republican from Alabama.  . . .

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"It will be fun to watch the NewsMax and Fox commentators try to spin this into a good light for the radical right."

Oh, they already have…those live-streaming well known white power spokespeople, alt-right podcasters and Qanon prohpets leading the mob into the rotunda were, apparently, antifa infiltrators all along. Who knew?

It’s somehow very informative that the current hypothesis the alt-right keeps running with is now assuming that "the left" includes all the big names of US white supremacy organizations.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

BLUE HAIR

NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR YOU MASNICK TO BE POINTING FINGERS AT SOMEONE LOSING THEIER EARNINGS DUE TO POLITICAL AFFILIATION, GIVEN THE FACT GOOGLE ISN"T GIVING YOUR PLATFORM MONETIZED ADVERTISEMENTS FOR ALLOWING FREE SPEECH ON YOUR PLATFORM.

BUT I GUESS THAT’S WHY YOU BROUGHT ON LEFT WING ANTI-PRO AMERICANS AS AUTHORS OF SUCH SH*T ARTICLES AND AN AUDIENCE THAT RESEMBLES ANTIFA/BLM WHO MAKE ADOLECANT/HATEFUL COMMENTS ON ANYONE WHO STILL READS FROM TECHDIRT WHO ARE PRO-AMERICAN.

JUST POINTING OUT AN OBSERVATION.

BUT I LIKE YOU FOR YOUR PAST ARTICLES AND WHY I STILL READ YOUR STUFF, I’VE BEEN A LONG TIME READER, STARTING FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. THIS JUST ISN’T YOUR BEST PIECE, MASNICK(BLUE HAIR). HAPPY NEW YEAR!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

BLUE HAIR

Oh, you knew what the point was. It was written in all caps with plain English words detailing the point. You just wanted to portray as if there wasn’t a point when you knew what it was. Obviously, the community flagged because every word was true, which you know is true as well. But I guess playing dumb is your usual routine around here when you can’t argue with pointing out facts, Stone.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
David says:

Re: BLUE HAIR

Obviously, the community flagged because every word was true,

In the mind of some people. There is a saying that "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose", and similarly your right to peddle your alternate truths stops where people get harmed.

That’s in the real world. In a forum, community moderation of course works according to the standards of the respective community. This forum has respectable enough standards that you consider it worth visiting.

If you want to see more agreement to your statements, try the comment sections of OANN. You’ll find a lot of like-minded people there.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 BLUE HAIR

Snarky but he fact is, you don’t know. You had no clue what was said. So I’ll point it out in lamens terms.

Masnicks cherished baby, Techdirt has been demonetized by Google based on conflicting political views in comments and them allowing free speech.

Point being, Masnick is a victim of his own rhetoric and his hair color isn’t such a good choice under the circumstances. And that is why he brought on left-wing authors that write anti-american and anti-Trump garbage to appease the advertisers giving Techdirt ad-revenue. And as a result has attracted adolescent pro BLM/Antifa anti-Americans to the platform,which reflects within the comments section of the platform.

But you knew that, didn’t you?

Now that wasn’t so bad was it?

Anon says:

Maybe...

Maybe Senator Hawley can get his book published by the same company as Trump Jr. Apparently, they are open to publishing anything, even illogical rants with grammar errors in the title. Hawley could save a fortune by not having to proofread first.

The next trick is to get it bought in bulk by the party your daddy controls so it appears to be a best seller. That part might be a bit harder for Hawley.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Paul says:

This cancellation is not about 1st Ammendment

It is about unquestionable HIS SUPPORT for Donald Trump. Author of this article should be ashamed, for being a cohort to Soviet doctrine "either you are with us or off to GULAG with you."

To all haters: I’m from a former socialist/communist country, and therefore I know far better than all of you socialism-venerating capitalists.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: This cancellation is not about 1st Ammendment

Yea, I read you baaaah shiiiit. Communism is right around the corner and you have no clue.

Don’t you know to win a war you have to dominate communications? First the internet/media platforms, establish a police state, take away everyones 2nd Amedment, hollow out 1st Amendment protections.

Your democrat friends pushed thier bash*t in he last covid stimulus bill giving themselves a 40k raise, didn’t reduce wasteful spending like they were supposed to at Trump’s request and gave you $600. #Pushthevote never happened to force a MC4A bill to the floor, thanks to your friends #thesquad who campaigned on it. And they all got rich off the stimulus bill because they’re all corrupt.

But, oh no, Trump supporters, you don’t like them because they’re on the other party, so you’ve gotta put them all in the same boat as agitators vandalizing property an put them in the same category because one person who died inside the capitol in protest chanting USA with American flags wanting their voices heard because they’ve been demonized, censored, businesses destroyed, out of work,and locked down. All of a sudden they’re criminals for support a just cause in protest not associated with terrorism, insurrection, or vandalism.

They were let inside the capital building at the time was there and many of whom went in came out with a completely different take on what happened inside, compared to the way you want to spin it. And while I was outside I watched mostly peaceful protest but once that girl was shot there was a flood of people going through the doors they were initially let through, while at the same time, differently clothed individuals were scaling the building to windows and trying to break in and Trump supporters were the ones stopping them.

But since they’re not who you like, you can say whatever you want about the peaceful Majority and mix them to take blame because you say so.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: This cancellation is not about 1st Ammendment

First the internet/media platforms[] establish a police state, take away everyone[‘]s 2nd Ame[n]dment [rights], hollow out 1st Amendment protections.

Well, we’re nowhere near step 1, as neither internet nor media platforms have, could, or would want to establish a police state; have any power to take away anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights; nor have or can “hollow out” 1A protections. They aren’t the government.

Your [D]emocrat friends pushed th[ei]r ba[t]sh*t in [t]he last covid stimulus bill giving themselves a 40k raise, didn’t reduce wasteful spending like they were supposed to at Trump’s request and gave you $600.

First, the last COVID stimulus bill was tacked onto a government spending bill by both parties (it was the latter that dealt with the raise and spending).

Second, both Democrats and Republicans gave the incoming Congress a raise.

Third, Democrats don’t strongly prioritize “reduc[ing] wasteful spending”, nor do their voters, and we couldn’t care less about what Trump wanted in this area.

Fourth, what constitutes “wasteful spending” is subject to debate.

Fifth, the Dems and Trump wanted to increase the $600, but congressional Republicans refused.

Pushthevote never happened to force a MC4A bill to the floor, thanks to your friends #thesquad who campaigned on it.

Even if they had, it would’ve never got past the Republican-controlled Senate or the President, and there’s a lot of debate within the Democratic Party on whether or not MC4A is a good idea.

But, oh no, Trump supporters, you don’t like them because they’re on the other party, so you’ve gotta put them all in the same boat as agitators vandalizing property an[d] put them in the same category because one person who died inside the capitol in protest chanting USA with American flags wanting their voices heard because they’ve been demonized, censored, businesses destroyed, out of work,and locked down. All of a sudden they’re criminals for support a just cause in protest not associated with terrorism, insurrection, or vandalism.

Did you even watch the videos of the inside? Also, I’ve seen no evidence that the protest had anything to do with anything other than the election results.

They were let inside the capital building at the time was there and many of whom went in came out with a completely different take on what happened inside, compared to the way you want to spin it.

Watch. The. Tapes.

And while I was outside I watched mostly peaceful protest

Let me be clear: if you were outside peacefully protesting, that’s fine. We’re talking about the people inside.

but once that girl was shot there was a flood of people going through the doors

Again, watch the videos. She was shot because she was trying to break into a restricted area.

while at the same time, differently clothed individuals were scaling the building to windows and trying to break in and Trump supporters were the ones stopping them.

It’s worth noting the people breaking in were also Trump supporters. And I haven’t seen any evidence to back-up this claim. You’re the only one I’ve seen make that claim.

But since they’re not who you like, you can say whatever you want about the peaceful Majority and mix them to take blame because you say so.

Isn’t that what you did with BLM and Antifa? At any rate, the problem is that the person you support instigated a riot on Capitol Hill. If you were outside, peacefully protesting, then you are not to blame. Again, all the people inside or trying to break in were the problem, and they were not peacefully protesting. I’m not interested in arguing about whether or not there were also people not rioting outside.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: This cancellation is not about 1st Ammendment

I don’t think you have a clue what communism actually means.

(Side note: I’ve noticed that a lot of arguments from the right tend to be one or more of the following:

  • X is bad, therefore X is communist/socialist.
  • X is communist/socialist, therefore X is bad.
  • I don’t like X, therefore X is bad and/or communist/socialist.
  • T says X is bad/communist/socialist, therefore it must be bad/communist/socialist.
  • T doesn’t like X, therefore I don’t like X.
  • [If X is a person or organization:] X doesn’t like T or treats T poorly, therefore I don’t like X.

…where X is some person, organization, policy, or event, and T is a conspiracy theory or a rightwing “news” source, politician, organization, or talking head. I can’t tell you how many times I got into an argument like this:

R: I don’t like X.

Me: Why not?

R: Because they’re a socialist/communist.

Me: What makes them a socialist/communist?

R: Because they support Y.

Me: How is that bad?

R: Because it leads to socialism/communism!

Me: What makes that bad?

R: Because it leads to Y.

That’s setting aside me pointing out all the other faulty logic, like whether or not X actually supports Y, whether Y has any connection to socialism/communism, etc. It’s also only if they don’t simply go, “Because it just is/does,” at some point. Keep in mind, I think that full-on socialism isn’t really the American way, and communism is unrealistic, so they are unable to give a coherent argument to things I already agree with.)

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: This cancellation is not about 1st Ammendment

You have never had an argument, thus mockery is all that’s needed for rebuttal.

Hitchens’s razor.

Though by your own metric, you won the potato, by starting with those empty insults, tovarisch.

Perhaps you’ll have better luck if you stop drinking your bottled potato before commenting.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: This cancellation is not about 1st Ammendment

This cancellation is not about 1st Am[]endment

Hawley said it was about the 1A.

It is about unquestionable HIS SUPPORT for Donald Trump.

Because it’s provoked an angry mob to attack the capital.

Author of this article should be ashamed, for being a cohort to Soviet doctrine "either you are with us or off to GULAG with you."

[Cites claims not in evidence]

To all haters: I’m from a former socialist/communist country, and therefore I know far better than all of you socialism-venerating capitalists.

(emphasis added) You realize that’s a contradiction, right? And how would you understand capitalism and the 1A better? Also, how are we venerating socialism?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Ameex Technologies says:

Snowflake Technology & Solutions Partner, Cloud Data Warehouse

Looking for an experienced Snowflake technology & solutions partner? Talk to us we provide cloud data warehouse consulting solutions. Ameex’s expertise makes us the ideal Snowflake implementation partner. We provide the Snowflake Integration With Google Cloud Platform and Snowflake Professional Services for all the industry verticals including BFSI (Banking, Financial Services & Insurance). To know more visit: https://www.ameexusa.com/digital-analytics/snowflake-data-warehouse-solutions

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...